# Why are Republicans pushing to extend the Bush tax cuts? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 25, 2010, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945 "2010-07-25T14:55:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/381 "2010-08-03T21:25:30Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > Its not that it is not feasible, it is not equitable or in keeping with the traditions of a democratic society. > > Neither is having less than 50% of the population paying 100% of the taxes. All you need is a touch of common sense to see where that will lead. A couple of things. 50% of the population does not pay 100% of the taxes. In fact 50% of the population doesn’t even pay 100% of the Federal income taxes (in case you think payroll taxes don’t count). Ask anyone who makes $40,00/year (or even $25,000/year without children) and they will all tell you taht they pay income taxes. It may not be as much as you pay but that is the nature of a progressive income tax. The only way you can come up with the 50% number is if you NET the negative taxes that the bottom 20% pays against the taxes paid by the next 30%. In other words, things like the earned income tax credit allow you to receive tax refunds that exceeds the taxes you paid in the first place. So yes, if you NET the tax payments and tax receipts of the bottom 50% you get something close to zero (its about 3% of all tax receipts) but it is misleading to say that 50% of households pay 100% of the tax (or federal income tax) because over 80% of American households pay a federal income tax. Come to think of it 3% paid on a net basis by the bottom 50% is still more than nothing. > [@](#): > > …in order to protect you FROM the government. What part of that _don’t_ you understand? The government is providing you with an attorney to prevent the government from denying you a fair trial, which is your right, IF you cannot afford one. If you can afford an attorney but choose not to get one the government provides you with nothing. In a civil case the government does not provide you with an attorney. If I sue you the government does not provide you with an attorney. Do you get it? What part of PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT don’t YOU understand. Didn’t you say that government doesn’t give you rights. Of course they do. > [@](#): > > So everyone under the age of 18 is being denied a right? Or, the right magically springs into existence as soon as you turn 18? There is, in fact, NO federal right to vote. In fact, it is a privilege extended by the states. That is correct, the right springs into existence when you reach 18. At that point the state cannot arbitrarily take away your right to vote, even if you are so poor that you don’t pay federal income taxes. > [@](#): > > Sigh…what property rights are the government protecting? The right to own property does not eminate from the government. And, as I stated, the 4th amendment prohibits the government from taking your property without due process and compensation. Yes, the only property right you have is to NOT have it taken by your government. By your definition the government should be providing us with property…since it is our right. So if I come and take your car, the government will not take it back from me and give it back to you? Even the most libertarian folks I know understand taht government is necessary to protect property rights. Rights that don’t exist in an anarchy. Your definition fo rights is too narrow even for your own purposes. Or are you saying that your property rights come from God and teh government only protect those rights? If the government is the only way you can enforce your proerty rights then what is the functional difference between getting your property rights from the government and getting those rights from God? > [@](#): > > My statement has nothing to do with your comment. I believe this is a deliberate misdirection on your part. My statement was clear. I don’t think you are allowed to call me a liar (unless you have some other reading of the words "deliberate misdirection ") but let me quote your words back to you: "I’ve already covered both of these. You cannot force a person to work for another. This is not a right but slavery. If people CHOOSE not to provide you with what you belive is a right, can the government force them to do the work at gunpoint? " This is in the context of public education and universal healthcare. What exactly did you mean when you said that I cannot force people to work for another? Weren’t you suggesting that I was stealing from you by taxing you to pay for the public education system and the universal health care system? Or did you simply mean to say that taxation is slavery rather than theft? And yes the government can in fact force you to pay taxes at gunpoint. That doesn’t make it theft or even slavery. Our children have a right to a public education paid for by everyone (including you) and pretty soon everyone will have a right to healthcare paid for by everyone (including you). > [@](#): > > I don’t see what one has to do with the other. The very mention of something in the constitution does not magically make it a right. Slavery was a fact at the time and was legal. That does not constitute a right. It was a property right that was enforced by the federal government even in free states (see Dredd Scott). > [@](#): > > Oh, so only YOU have the FACTS. The ONLY thing the country is worried about is the economy? Maybe people believe that the idiotic ideas of this president and congress are making the economy worse. I suppose, in that case, you would be half right. No everyone has the facts and I have presented them. Lets not forget TARP was passed under Bush, the first stimulus was passed under Bush, the secodn stimulus and health care reform were all pretty clearly advertised elements of the Obama campaign. And YET they still elected him. In fact some people might say that is WHY they elected him. And now that we have been pulled out of the ditch, some people are griping about the towing fee because driving into the ditch bent our axle and we aren’t moving as fast as we were when we drove into the ditch. I’m not saying the econopmy is the ONLY thing the country is worried about but I am saying that if the economy wasn’t sucking so bad, there would be no chance of a flip in the house or senate. What idiotic economy worsening ideado youb think the President and Cngress have? > [@](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > There is NOTHING that has been done during the past two years that were not exsplicitly laid out during the 2008 campaign season. Health care was a prominent part of the presidential debates, the stimulus plan and TARP pre-existed an Obama presidency and the Obama stimulus was also well advertised BEFORE he got elected. If anything people got LESS than they were promised. > > > > People are pissed because of the economy. You really think that if the economy was buzzing right along, we would be talking about a possible turnover in the House, you think there is ANY chance we would be talking about a turnover in the senate without a crappy economy? > > Oh, people love ideas in the abstract but, when they see the process and backroom deals, they will turn their backs on the ideas. Health care reform is the perfect example. People were disgusted with many aspects of the bill and opposition to it increased even after it was passed. My guess is that when people get a good look at the the effects opposition will increase again. [/quote] Are you saying that people only voted for the IDEA health care reform and a second stimulus package? That in november of 2008 when everyone was talking about the possibility of a second Great Depression, they were really only enamored with the IDEA of a second stimulus package, they didn’t actually want one? They were only interested in health care reform as an idea? PUHLEASE. Once again, do you think there was any chance of a turnover in the House or the Senate without a crappy economy? Of course not. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/382 "2010-08-03T21:28:08Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > > [@Squink](#): > > > > Neither is allowing 5% of the population to amass 50% of the nation’s wealth. > > > > This “it’s not in keeping with the traditions of a democratic society” game can go on a _long_ time. > > Allowing? What is the meaning of that? The nation’s wealth is not finite. Also, nobody is forcing you to shop at Walmart or buy Coca-Cola products. These companies amass wealth by giving YOU products that you want to purchase. At any point in time, the nation’s wealth is finite. That is why the term wealth distribution exists. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/383 "2010-08-03T21:29:06Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I can guarantee you that a family making $250K before taxes is decidedly middle class in the DC area. In the Washington Metropolitan Area the median household income for a family of 4 was $102k in 2009 (cite: [http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/housing/hpp/CPHDHousingHppHsgData.aspx#income](http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/housing/hpp/CPHDHousingHppHsgData.aspx#income)). Wikipedia claims somewhere between 12.2% (NoVa) and 8.2% (Washington) of the households make over $200k. I have not been able to verify this with census data yet. Lots of people think they are “middle class” when they decidedly aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/384 "2010-08-03T21:32:54Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > This isn’t partisan, as I thought GWB was an idiot and the GOP is as guilty (not more guilty) of irresponsible spending as the Dems. So I suppose you voted for Gore and Kerry? And while the GOP may not be more guilty of irresponsible spending, they are more guilty for irresponsible tax cuts. > [@](#): > > As for deficit, I hold out little hope of anyone showing the discipline to cut spending until T-bills are in serious danger of losing AAA status, which would up the ante a lot and might get someone to act like a grown up and start passing balanced budgets that involve real cuts. Or raise taxes. You do realize taht just because you want increased taxes off the table doesn’t mean that anyone is going to take themm off the table right? > [@](#): > > I don’t like that, but honestly, if the federal government were evaluated as an investment right now (they’re not because people keep assuming the power to print money with no negative consequences is limitless), it might not rise above junk bond status. I don’t want anymore exposure to junk investments than I already have . . . . You know you van entirely eliminate your exposure to this junk investment by leaving and going somewhere else right? Don’t forget to leave everything you made here (that you wouldn’t have been able to make in your new home) with immigration on your way out. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/385 "2010-08-03T21:44:29Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > My WTF exactly. It’s unreal and obscene in the current environment, and it completely saps my ability to trust the federal government with any incremental bit of my money. I am sure it is the case that there are areas of the government you could identify that are criminally underfunded just as these bureaucrats are criminally overpaid, but the psychological impact on taxpayers, on people who have been laid off, etc. of news like this is to reinforce (esp. as to the current Administration) the idea that the federal government is out of touch with, and no friend of, real America. I think I would like mroe information on who these folks at the DoT are. If they are mostly engineers and scientists then I don’t really have a problem. Working for the government is not a vow of poverty. I think you need a little perspective on where our tax dollars go. > **[File:Federal spendings.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_spendings.png)** > > The bar chart presented on the National Debt Awareness Center home page is based on U.S. Senate Appropriations Bills and the Monthly Treasury Statement. > The data was published by the U. S. Treasury Department into a spreadsheet and generate the bar chart from that spreadsheet. > > Attribution > [@](#): > > I don’t know where any of you guys live or what your experience of the last two years has been, but try this experiment if you haven’t already. … > Then – see if your D.C. friend, particularly if they work for the government, I live in DC, many of my freinds work for the government. Every last one of them would make more money in the private sector. They all took pay cuts to work in government. The private sector here has fared better than places like Ohio but a lot of people got laid off around here. I will agree that it seem impossible to get fired when you work for the government but the way it was explained to me is that this is ebcause of safeguards that are in place to prevent among other things the politicization of the bureaucracy. > [@](#): > > That alone tells me the federal government needs less, not more, money into its maw. Once again, salaries are a tiny itty bitty peice of the federal budget. > **[File:Federal spendings.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_spendings.png)** > > The bar chart presented on the National Debt Awareness Center home page is based on U.S. Senate Appropriations Bills and the Monthly Treasury Statement. > The data was published by the U. S. Treasury Department into a spreadsheet and generate the bar chart from that spreadsheet. > > Attribution ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/386 "2010-08-03T21:48:03Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > > [@Squink](#): > > > > So, has anyone come up with a valid reason that congress should incur another $800 billion in debt so as to give the economic upper class a big new tax break? > > I’d think that after 8 pages, someone would’ve posted one, if there was a good reason. > > So can anyone come up with a valid reason that Congress should pass a budget that requires $800 billion more than recent historic tax revenues can fund? Because even if you elimiated EVERY Federal agency, just the entitlements and military spending would put us in the hole. We can’t cut our way out of this deficit, we can’t grow our way out of this deficit, and we can’t tax our way out of this deficit. We will need ALL three eventually but cutting spending during a shaky recovery has to be done very very carefully. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/387 "2010-08-03T21:54:17Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > > [@Jas09](#): > > > > This type of talk is exactly why many folks don’t think the Republican Party gets it. $200k salary is not middle class. The median household income in 2007 was around $50k. Four times the median is no longer in “the middle”. 96.5% of the households in American made less than 200k in 2006. > > > > [http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06\_000.htm](http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new06_000.htm) > > I can guarantee you that a family making $250K before taxes is decidedly middle class in the DC area. What?!?!?! The median family income in any of the counties around DC are about 100K. What exactly is your definition of middle class? Noone is impressed with your welth if you make 250K but you are not decidedly middle class, you are decidedly well off. I make about that and I may not feel “rich” but I make at least as much as most doctors or lawyers. Or do you think doctors and lawyers are decidedly middle class? To be fair, there are a LOT of lawyers and PhDs around here. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/388 "2010-08-03T22:00:16Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > > [@Squink](#): > > > > I’m talking people, not companies. You realize there is a difference? Concentration of wealth to this great an extent looks more like an aristocracy than a democracy, especially when people start advocating voting rights only for ‘stakeholders’. > > Are you saying that Republicans want new tax cuts for the wealthy because they support an aristocratic model for American society rather than a democratic model? Has the party utterly abandoned the middle class? > > What is the difference? Companies are made up of people…some of whom are extremely wealthy. People start companies. You are aware of this, are you not? Concentration of wealth is not the result of the rich having at the expense of the poor. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. This is exactly the problem with the mindset of those on the left. Of course you can create more welath. The left doesn’t have a problem with that notion. The left has difficulty with the notion that the market distributes the wealth in a way that concentrates wealth the way it does. Do you honestly think that CEO’s today are worth ten times what CEOs were worth in the 1960’s relative to what their employees were paid? > [@](#): > > > [@Squink](#): > > > > Exactly. We the people decide whether we want to allow banksters, drug dealers, slumlords and the like to control _most_ of the wealth of the nation. > > As opposed to allowing 535 dimwits in DC to both control wealth and spend the wealth of your children? As opposed to having the government take your wealth by threat of force to give to someone who has not earned it? I am utterly amazed at the amount of faith that you on the left place in your government and how much you trust them to take from you what they will and give it to who they want. > > We the people currently decide where we want to spend most of our money. That’s how those banksters and drug dealers get so rich. They provide something we want. [/quote] We get to elect those 535 dimwits. The free market dynamic is… different. The free market is usually pretty good at pricing things (as recent events show, this is not always the case), it is good at producing wealth, it is not so good at allocating that wealth among the stakeholders. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/389 "2010-08-04T02:05:01Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > – points for retarded style, I suppose). Keep the conversation civil. [/Modding] ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/390 "2010-08-04T04:14:26Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Do you honestly think that CEO’s today are worth ten times what CEOs were worth in the 1960’s relative to what their employees were paid?.. Keep in mind, the guys who slither to the top of the greasy pole have one reliable talent: they are, provably, adept at “office politics”. Now, if you are the kind of person who likes people who are good at office politics, respects and admires the skill set thereof…you should vote Republican. ---
**Author:** ![erez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@erez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erez)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/391 "2010-08-04T05:56:06Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > [@erez](#): > > > > I am not the person you were replying to, but while the tax increase is not yet in effect, the law to raise taxes was passed and became the law of the nation in 2010. Not taking this tax increase that will especially affect higher-income people into account would of course be wrong. > > Which peice of legislation are you talking about? The health care bill. It affects the same group of taxpayers as would Obama’s plan to expire just a part of Bush’s cuts. The tax increase is pretty significant and since it’s the law, it cannot be ignored when talking about expiring Bush’s tax cuts. For example, it increased the Medicare payroll tax paid by these taxpayers only. It created a 3.8% tax on income from investments and from home sales (if it generated over $250,000 in profit for individuals or if it is not a primary residence, not indexed for inflation, I believe). All this comes as states are also often looking at high-income taxpayers to pay for their deficits. ---
**Author:** ![erez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@erez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erez)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/392 "2010-08-04T06:14:53Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Instead they cut taxes and said “we don’t HAVE to cut spending because these tax cuts will actually INCREASE government revenue so we can afford even MORE tax cuts (and an energy bill)” Yes, the Republicans were fiscally irresponsible by not just not cutting spending, but increasing it. It doesn’t mean that the Democrats get should a free pass. Also, in constant dollars, the federal government revenues before the recession (2006 and 2007) were in fact greater than the government revenues before the tax cuts (2000 or any other year before then). Even in 2009, the government revenues were greater than in any year before 1998 (also adjusted for inflation). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/393 "2010-08-04T08:00:38Z")
> [@erez](#): > > …It doesn’t mean that the Democrats get should a free pass. … No, it doesn’t. What it does mean is that we are reasonable if we regard Republican claims of fiscal prudence and responsibility with, ah, skepticism. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/394 "2010-08-04T11:29:02Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > [@Huerta88](#): > > > > It’s upthread, but why should I be a curmudgeon when I don’t have to? > > > > [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-federal-pay-salaries\_N.htm](http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-12-10-federal-pay-salaries_N.htm) > > WTF? > > “When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.” > > "• Paycaps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency’s leader. But if Congress lifts the boss’ salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief’s salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees’ had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too. " > > Wow!!! > > I didn’t even think that was legally possible unless you worked at the SEC or one of the financial regulatory agencies. The only other way that I can think of that this might be possible is if these guys are scientists. Scientists are on a different pay scale. I’m not especially bothered by air traffic controllers making on average $170,000. Seems like they earn it, and I’d rather keep good air traffic controllers doing their job. The big jump in the numbers appears to be due to the result of a resolution in contract negotiations. [http://www.faa.gov/news/press\_releases/news\_story.cfm?contentKey=4048](http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?contentKey=4048) It also seems like complaining about this as “Transportation Department employees” is somewhat misleading - a somewhat deceitful attempt to raise the “WTF” factor moreso than saying air traffic controllers had a contract negotiation resolution that yielded an average salary of about $170K. Does it really seem to you that air traffic controllers _shouldn’t_ make that much? ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/395 "2010-08-04T20:13:11Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > couple of things. 50% of the population does not pay 100% of the taxes. In fact 50% of the population doesn’t even pay 100% of the Federal income taxes (in case you think payroll taxes don’t count). > Ask anyone who makes $40,00/year (or even $25,000/year without children) and they will all tell you taht they pay income taxes. It may not be as much as you pay but that is the nature of a progressive income tax. > > The only way you can come up with the 50% number is if you NET the negative taxes that the bottom 20% pays against the taxes paid by the next 30%. In other words, things like the earned income tax credit allow you to receive tax refunds that exceeds the taxes you paid in the first place. > > So yes, if you NET the tax payments and tax receipts of the bottom 50% you get something close to zero (its about 3% of all tax receipts) but it is misleading to say that 50% of households pay 100% of the tax (or federal income tax) because over 80% of American households pay a federal income tax. > > Come to think of it 3% paid on a net basis by the bottom 50% is still more than nothing. You are correct. 47% of the population does not pay any federal income taxes. The point I was making in the comment you quoted is, as I have stated before, that we are approaching half of the population that pays zero federal income tax. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36226444](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36226444) I found this part very interesting: > [@Article](#): > > The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > What part of PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNMENT don’t YOU understand. Didn’t you say that government doesn’t give you rights. Of course they do. The part that, just because something is provided by the government, it is somehow a right. Welfare is provided by the government at no cost to the recipient also. Does that make welfare a right? I think I see your problem. This is very similar to debates on equality. Some think equality is defined by outcome instead of opportunity. You see a right, incorrectly, as something that must be GIVEN to you by your benevolent overlords in the the government. I see rights as protecting me from my government. So, for you, the right to an attorney means that the government MUST provide you with one. But, as I’ve already shown, this is not the case. The right to an attorney means the government cannot stop you from seeking advice from an attorney. The “right” to health care (whatever that means) means, to you, that the government MUST provide you with health care. So, must the federal government also provide me with a gun? Property? How about a TV or newspaper subscription so I can get me some of that freedom of the press? > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That is correct, the right springs into existence when you reach 18. At that point the state cannot arbitrarily take away your right to vote, even if you are so poor that you don’t pay federal income taxes. Nonsense. As I’ve already stated, as a matter of fact, voting is a privelege extended by the states. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So if I come and take your car, the government will not take it back from me and give it back to you? Even the most libertarian folks I know understand taht government is necessary to protect property rights. Rights that don’t exist in an anarchy. Your definition fo rights is too narrow even for your own purposes. > > Or are you saying that your property rights come from God and teh government only protect those rights? If the government is the only way you can enforce your proerty rights then what is the functional difference between getting your property rights from the government and getting those rights from God? Aren’t you confusing State government (or even city government) with the federal government? I can guarantee you that if I steal your car the feds are not going to be looking for me…unless I violate your civil rights in the process. At any rate, propery rights are natural rights…not some right that is handed out by the government. Yes, we task our governments to protect our property but this is not the equivalent of saying our government gives us the right to own something. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think you are allowed to call me a liar (unless you have some other reading of the words "deliberate misdirection ") but let me quote your words back to you: > > "I’ve already covered both of these. You cannot force a person to work for another. This is not a right but slavery. If people CHOOSE not to provide you with what you belive is a right, can the government force them to do the work at gunpoint? " > > This is in the context of public education and universal healthcare. > What exactly did you mean when you said that I cannot force people to work for another? Weren’t you suggesting that I was stealing from you by taxing you to pay for the public education system and the universal health care system? Or did you simply mean to say that taxation is slavery rather than theft? > > And yes the government can in fact force you to pay taxes at gunpoint. That doesn’t make it theft or even slavery. > > Our children have a right to a public education paid for by everyone (including you) and pretty soon everyone will have a right to healthcare paid for by everyone (including you). A misdirection is not a lie. My point was clear and had nothing to do with taxation. IF the state determines that medical care is a “right” AND health care workers decide not to do their work, then how can your rights be preserved. The government would have to force people to work for you. That’s slavery. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > It was a property right that was enforced by the federal government even in free states (see Dredd Scott). Yes, you are making my point for me. As I stated upthread, slavery was a bastardization of property rights. Slavery itself was not a right. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > No everyone has the facts and I have presented them. Lets not forget TARP was passed under Bush, the first stimulus was passed under Bush, the secodn stimulus and health care reform were all pretty clearly advertised elements of the Obama campaign. And YET they still elected him. In fact some people might say that is WHY they elected him. And now that we have been pulled out of the ditch, some people are griping about the towing fee because driving into the ditch bent our axle and we aren’t moving as fast as we were when we drove into the ditch. > > I’m not saying the econopmy is the ONLY thing the country is worried about but I am saying that if the economy wasn’t sucking so bad, there would be no chance of a flip in the house or senate. What idiotic economy worsening ideado youb think the President and Cngress have? I love all these metaphors for “Recovery”. Usually presented without a shred of evidence that anything done by this administration has helped the economy. Usually the typical respone is "well it would have been much worse without (insert pet Obama reform here). > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Are you saying that people only voted for the IDEA health care reform and a second stimulus package? That in november of 2008 when everyone was talking about the possibility of a second Great Depression, they were really only enamored with the IDEA of a second stimulus package, they didn’t actually want one? They were only interested in health care reform as an idea? PUHLEASE. Yeah…that’s pretty much what I’m saying. “Stimulus” sounds great until you realize it is just a bunch of wasted money on numerous pet projects of the left. “Health care reform” sounds wonderful until people see the price tag or federal funds used for abortions. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Once again, do you think there was any chance of a turnover in the House or the Senate without a crappy economy? Of course not. Of course. The party in power usually loses seats in the midterms. Independents are fleeing from Obama for a number of reasons including the economy. The far left is pissed that he has not done enough, or has done too much for his “corporate overloards” and will probably stay home on election day. The right is energized by just how far left this president is trying to take the country and will be waiting to pull any lever against Obama’s policies. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/396 "2010-08-05T00:21:40Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > WTF? > > > > “When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.” > > > > "• Paycaps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency’s leader. But if Congress lifts the boss’ salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief’s salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees’ had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too. " > > > > Wow!!! > > > > I didn’t even think that was legally possible unless you worked at the SEC or one of the financial regulatory agencies. The only other way that I can think of that this might be possible is if these guys are scientists. Scientists are on a different pay scale. > > My WTF exactly. It’s unreal and obscene in the current environment, and it completely saps my ability to trust the federal government with any incremental bit of my money. I am sure it is the case that there are areas of the government you could identify that are criminally underfunded just as these bureaucrats are criminally overpaid, but the psychological impact on taxpayers, on people who have been laid off, etc. of news like this is to reinforce (esp. as to the current Administration) the idea that the federal government is out of touch with, and no friend of, real America. I’d still want to know wtf is going on. For example I can tell you that a significant number of folks at the NIH make more than $150K but they are research scientists and medical doctors, the best in their field, etc. I can see how you would want this explained but as someone who makes more than $170K/year, are you saying you honestly can’t figure out how 1700 people can be making more than 170K? I’ll reserve judgment but 1700 of them sounds like a lot. > [@](#): > > I don’t know where any of you guys live or what your experience of the last two years has been, but try this experiment if you haven’t already. Assuming you don’t live in D.C. or the Capital region, talk to some friends or former classmates who do. If you’re anything like me, watercooler talk over the past two years has involved a lot of depressing talk about the staff we’ve had to lay off, about the laid off friends who have been out of work for eight, ten, fourteen months, about salary and hiring freezes, about people facing foreclosure, about massive hikes in local/property taxes, about real uncertainty as to my own job security and compensation level – most of you have probably had similar discussions and these issues come up at cocktail parties, etc. > > Then – see if your D.C. friend, particularly if they work for the government, doesn’t give you a kind of oddball look as you’re relating those stories. Ask them how many people in their world have been laid off or faced salary cuts. Ask how many, on the other hand, have marched right on up the pay grades with healthy COLAs, etc. They have experienced this recession quite differently than most of the rest of us. That alone tells me the federal government needs less, not more, money into its maw. I live in DC. There have been a lot of layoffs around here. It hasn’t been as bad as most places but its been noticable and everyone feels uncertain about their job, even government employees. As for the much vaunted government job security. Let me start by saying that it is in place for some practical and some administrative reasons. Administratively, you don’t want to politicize the bureaucracy by making the job of tax collector or environmental regulator a position subject to political pressures. (see Nixon and the enemies list). As a practical matter almost everyone I know in government would make more in the private sector. In fact, the more they make, the larger the disparity with the private sector. They work in government for many reasons, lifestyle, sense of patriotism, benefits and yes job security. > [@erez](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > Instead they cut taxes and said “we don’t HAVE to cut spending because these tax cuts will actually INCREASE government revenue so we can afford even MORE tax cuts (and an energy bill)” > > Yes, the Republicans were fiscally irresponsible by not just not cutting spending, but increasing it. It doesn’t mean that the Democrats get should a free pass. Also, in constant dollars, the federal government revenues before the recession (2006 and 2007) were in fact greater than the government revenues before the tax cuts (2000 or any other year before then). Even in 2009, the government revenues were greater than in any year before 1998 (also adjusted for inflation). The government revenue you are talking about is BELOW the federal estimate of what would have been collected if the Bush tax cuts had NOT taken place. Tax cuts don’t increase the federal revenue. No serious economist believes that the tax cuts resulted in an increase in tax revenue over what they would have been without the tax cuts. Everyone from the CBO to President Bush’s chief economist on his council of economic advisors believes that. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > WTF? > > > > “When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.” > > > > "• Paycaps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency’s leader. But if Congress lifts the boss’ salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief’s salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees’ had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too. " > > > > Wow!!! > > > > I didn’t even think that was legally possible unless you worked at the SEC or one of the financial regulatory agencies. The only other way that I can think of that this might be possible is if these guys are scientists. Scientists are on a different pay scale. > > I’m not especially bothered by air traffic controllers making on average $170,000. Seems like they earn it, and I’d rather keep good air traffic controllers doing their job. > > The big jump in the numbers appears to be due to the result of a resolution in contract negotiations. [http://www.faa.gov/news/press\_releases/news\_story.cfm?contentKey=4048](http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?contentKey=4048) > > It also seems like complaining about this as “Transportation Department employees” is somewhat misleading - a somewhat deceitful attempt to raise the “WTF” factor moreso than saying air traffic controllers had a contract negotiation resolution that yielded an average salary of about $170K. > > Does it really seem to you that air traffic controllers _shouldn’t_ make that much? No that sounds reasonable. I had forgotten about air traffic controllers. BTW I also noted that the 170K includes benefits. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/397 "2010-08-05T01:13:01Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > You see a right, incorrectly, as something that must be GIVEN to you by your benevolent overlords in the the government. I see rights as protecting me from my government. So, for you, the right to an attorney means that the government MUST provide you with one. But, as I’ve already shown, this is not the case. The right to an attorney means the government cannot stop you from seeking advice from an attorney. I understand exactly what you mean. I agree what you call rights are in fact rights. The right to freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, etc. I am saying that your definition of rights is limited to "thing the government cannot do or cannot stop you from doing. > [@](#): > > The “right” to health care (whatever that means) means, to you, that the government MUST provide you with health care. So, must the federal government also provide me with a gun? Property? How about a TV or newspaper subscription so I can get me some of that freedom of the press? Does the right to bear arms equal the right to have guns provided to you? In the opposite manner the right to have health care provided to you is not the same as the right to get health care for yourself. You have adopted a narrow definition of rights and now you are trying to get everyone to adopt that definition. Here is the wiki article on rights: > **[Rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights)** > > Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are an important concept in law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology. > The history of social conflicts has often involved attempts to define and redefine rights. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights st... My definition of rights includes entitlements, things you have a right to. > [@](#): > > Nonsense. As I’ve already stated, as a matter of fact, voting is a privelege extended by the states. Yes it is a right given to you by the states. > [@](#): > > Aren’t you confusing State government (or even city government) with the federal government? I can guarantee you that if I steal your car the feds are not going to be looking for me…unless I violate your civil rights in the process. I thought you said the government can’t give you rights. Did you mean the federal government can’t give you rights but the state and local governments can? > [@](#): > > At any rate, property rights are natural rights…not some right that is handed out by the government. Yes, we task our governments to protect our property but this is not the equivalent of saying our government gives us the right to own something. So you think property rights are “god given” they are natural rights, right? Then unless you all rights are natural rights you must think that some rights are legal rights GIVEN TO YOU BY THE GOVERNMENT. When it comes to natural rights, you are parroting John Locke who considered property rights one of the natural rights (but only because society as he saw it could not exist without property rights). If he lived in communist Russia, he would have a very different view of property rights. If he even lived in England 5 centuries earlier, he would not have enjoyed property rights the way it was understood in his day and ours. Rights are not some static gift of God, they are part of our social contract, things we get in exchange for meeting our obligations (e.g. paying your taxes), they can change over time and if we are not careful they can evaporate. > [@](#): > > A misdirection is not a lie. My point was clear and had nothing to do with taxation. IF the state determines that medical care is a “right” AND health care workers decide not to do their work, then how can your rights be preserved. The government would have to force people to work for you. That’s slavery. OOOOHHHHH, Okay I see what you are saying. The government is only going to provide the means of funding the health care (like they do with medicare), the glorious free market will take care of the rest. If all the doctors in the country go on strike, we will import doctors from other countries and we will realize that human physiology is more or less the same all over the world. I know plenty of doctors that have decided to retire in the last 20 years when health insurance became ubiquitous because healthcare reimbursement rates dropped so low. They are used to working for thousands a day and now have to work twice as much for half as much money. And yet medical schools still reject a higher percentage of their applicants than anyone else. > [@](#): > > Yes, you are making my point for me. As I stated upthread, slavery was a bastardization of property rights. Slavery itself was not a right. It was a property right (see Dredd Scott, again), you know, the thing you called a natural right. The fact that it was a shitty property right made it no less of a right. It was a right protected and enforced by the courts. > [@](#): > > I love all these metaphors for “Recovery”. Usually presented without a shred of evidence that anything done by this administration has helped the economy. Usually the typical respone is "well it would have been much worse without (insert pet Obama reform here). How would you make a direct causal link between anything any a President did and this recovery. I show people the way we went from losing jobs at an increasing rate every month to losing jobs as slower and slower rates util we start to gain jobs ad increasing rates every month and the answer is “but unemployment is still high so it didn’t work” I just don’t know how to respond to someone who thinks that 10% unemployment while losing 800,000 jobs a month to an unemployment rate of 9% that is gaining 200,000 jobs a month isn’t progress. Sure it could be better, we could be back in a Clinton economy… you know, when those higher tax rates didn’t seem to deepen the last Republican recession. > [@](#): > > Yeah…that’s pretty much what I’m saying. “Stimulus” sounds great until you realize it is just a bunch of wasted money on numerous pet projects of the left. “Health care reform” sounds wonderful until people see the price tag or federal funds used for abortions. And I’m saying that if the economy was buzzing along, people would ooh and ahh at the shiny new health care system we got. > [@](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > Once again, do you think there was any chance of a turnover in the House or the Senate without a crappy economy? Of course not. > > Of course. The party in power usually loses seats in the midterms. Independents are fleeing from Obama for a number of reasons including the economy. The far left is pissed that he has not done enough, or has done too much for his “corporate overloards” and will probably stay home on election day. The right is energized by just how far left this president is trying to take the country and will be waiting to pull any lever against Obama’s policies. [/quote] Yeah but there usually isn’t a 40 seat swing during mid term elections in the house or a 5 seat swing in the senate. Remember “its the economy stupid” well its applicable this year as well. ---
**Author:** ![erez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@erez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erez)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945/398 "2010-08-05T09:49:21Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The government revenue you are talking about is BELOW the federal estimate of what would have been collected if the Bush tax cuts had NOT taken place. Tax cuts don’t increase the federal revenue. No serious economist believes that the tax cuts resulted in an increase in tax revenue over what they would have been without the tax cuts. Everyone from the CBO to President Bush’s chief economist on his council of economic advisors believes that. The point was that it is spending that is growing uncontrollably, not revenue that is dropping. Cutting spending is where the focus should be if you want to address the deficit. No serious economist believes that tax increases can improve growth. There are multiple data points showing that increasing taxes on high-income taxpayers could actually decrease government revenue and vice versa (Arthur Laffer presents some here: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703977004575393882112674598.html](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703977004575393882112674598.html)). Raising taxes when growth is uncertain ([http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iAwtTscyEU9xW-ptb6Y1\_1\_nsC3A](http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iAwtTscyEU9xW-ptb6Y1_1_nsC3A)) would be a big mistake. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-republicans-pushing-to-extend-the-bush-tax-cuts/547945.md?page=19)