Good points also RAF, and Lupus:
.
Economics is really a counter intuitive science. The whole idea of taxing the "rich" (not sure what you even define as rich today?) always sounds great when your not in that class. The big problem is that when you take away $$$ from the rich (or any class for that matter) and give it to the government to spend. The government has far less effect on economic growth; as the $$$ is so often wasted, and misappropriated. Not to mention often tainted with corruption, and political payoffs. The left loves to point out the greedy corporate thieves who squander and misallocate $$ (which I have no problem with when that happens), but look at government if you want to see the biggest thieves of all. Every time that happens all you hear is "lets move on" and create even bigger government to solve the problems.

Thank you; love my country
.
Factcheck: The deflationary spiral we are currently in is certainly a problem. The Great Depression was the classic historical case of a deflationary spiral. Unfortunately the "fix" by the feds is going to create a stunning reversal. It will not happen over night, but just give it a few years, mark my word. As I said, they are going to attempt to inflate their way out of the problem. This has been tried in many other countries. The real extreme example is Zimbabwe where the inflation ran away so severe that you have bills that are like 5,000,000 that will buy you a cup of coffee. Mexico is also another good example of severe currency devaluation. That is the real problem this country is going to face with the extreme measures that are now taking place via the federal reserve printing $$$, and congress borrowing massively on debt. If the measures do work the average person will indeed have much more wealth in raw dollars, but your purchasing power will be severely hurt by the sky rocketing prices from inflation. If the measures do not work, then you face the worse problem of all, and that is stagflation. Where prices go up and up, and economic growth remains the same.

“The fact that you're attempting to link tax levels, tax revenue, and GDP growth is an example of a post-hoc fallacy.”
-
The two are very relevant in the discussion on this thread. Posters have tried to explain that higher taxes are needed for the rich and tax burdens on the corps have fallen. All taxes lead to revenues (intake for the Government). If historically you show that these levels have remained marginally close to the rise in the GDP growth, the argument for an increase in tax revenues is shown false; regardless of high or low taxes the intake margins are the close to the same (in respect to GDP), showing and increase in taxes is not the only/best answer. The spending side of this equation is just the opposite. Government spending has grown at a larger rate than GDP; this is the problem many here and in politics today do not understand. The current stimulus plan will only expand this scenario.

"What amount do you want them to pay? If 30% is good why not 60%? If 60% is better why not 90%? Historically if you look at receipts (money collected by the government) in comparison to GDP it is close to 18%."

GDP growth does not take into account investment that does not "produce" a good or service. There may be some ancillary GDP growth as a result of that infusion of capital, but it's likely not on a 1:1 basis. Additionally, in times of higher tax rates, one can invest and sit on profit until a more opportune time presents itself...either in the case of a lowered tax rate or removed and offset by loss or other tax credits. The fact that you're attempting to link tax levels, tax revenue, and GDP growth is an example of a post-hoc fallacy. It completely ignores the ability of individuals to manage their monies actively in order to invest and take profit in order to more effectively manage their tax burden.

"FDR`s biggest mistake was pulling back on his programs in 1937" --- "I don`t know if the stimulus will work,"
-
Very contradicting statements. You believe FDR should have continued his spending because it would have fixed the depression yet you are not sure the current bloated stimulus plan will work.

"Tax receipts from corporations are down by about 30% the last 25 years. Individuals have had to make up the difference to keep up revenue numbers."
-
Yet tax rates for individuals have dropped (Bush tax cuts) and receipts to the Government have increased to match the GDP growth.

"When the rich get breaks not available to everybody else, that is "screwing." It`s a fallacy to say they use that money to create jobs, they will not invest it now because nobody is buying anything, so you don`t need more goods, consequently, you don`t need more employees."
-
First there is no tax break just for the “rich”, there are tax laws for all people. Second, who are you to decide what others do with their money? If a person chooses to purchase something or save for something else that is nobodies business but their own. Even if they do decide to keep it forever that gives you no right to demand they spend it or cough it up in taxes.

Tax receipts from corporations are down by about 30% the last 25 years. Individuals have had to make up the difference to keep up revenue numbers. And over 60% of PROFITABLE corporations pay NO tax! Top 1% of taxpayers in America make 33% of all the money, $1.3 trillion. The top 10% make more than the other 90%. You have to tax where the money is, and we`re becoming a country of rich, and poor, very little middle class left. Wages have stagnated for 20 years, unless you`re one of the rich.

The only one that has come close to doing that was Clinton, and he was reamed by the Republicans for it. There should be spending cuts, but where? Your cuts might not be what I want, who makes the decision? And now is not the time to be timid, we`re too far in to just stop without trying to get out of the hole. FDR`s biggest mistake was pulling back on his programs in 1937 because some of his advisors were worried about deficits. His programs were working until he got cautious. When the rich get breaks not available to everybody else, that is "screwing." It`s a fallacy to say they use that money to create jobs, they will not invest it now because nobody is buying anything, so you don`t need more goods, consequently, you don`t need more employees. Maybe we should do what Ireland has done, they got tired of companies not paying taxes because of loopholes so they eliminated them. They did set the tax low, 12.4%, but all pay. I don`t know if the stimulus will work, nobody does, but I don`t believe you can sit on your hands and hope the economy will right itself with no help. It got help to get in this mess, de-regulation, deficit spending, oil and housing speculation, tax cuts for the well off. What is your solution?

factcheck --- you continue to complain about taxes (not enough) paid by corporations and the "rich". What amount do you want them to pay? If 30% is good why not 60%? If 60% is better why not 90%? Historically if you look at receipts (money collected by the government) in comparison to GDP it is close to 18%. This number doesn’t change much with respect to the tax burden placed on any class. If this is true how can you continue to say others should pay more? If the historical facts have shown that percentage collected stayed the same (in comparison to GDP) from the ultra-high tax rates of the past to the moderate tax brackets of today why increase taxes at all? As always, the problem is not in how much is collected it is in how much is spent (by Governemt).

“Let`s give them another tax cut, and screw the rest of us more! Whether you want to see it or not…taking it in the rear”
-
This is the fallacy of many of those on the left. Letting people keep their money “screws” others??? The budget problems in Washington, and most states, are not due to dwindling tax receipts. The BIG problem comes from people elected to spend money collected by the Government. The economic engine that drives our economy comes from consumer spending, this only happens when people have money to spend. By controlling government spending (spending less then they currently receive) everyone can keep more of their own money to drive the economy. Until you and many of those in Government get off the notion that people and corporations that make money are “bad” and should have more of their money taken from them so the Government can spend it our economic superiority will continue to fissile.

"...the GOP hopes to regain power by becoming the champion of small government, a reputation many felt slipped away during the high-spending Bush years.

"How about those House Republicans?" cheered Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a vocal small-government advocate, at a Heritage Foundation appearance yesterday.

"Conservative talk show hosts whipped up opposition to the [stimulus] bill, and Republicans said they received dozens of e-mails and phone calls about it, almost all voicing opposition."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28926731/

That`s because they are worried about deflation now, not inflation.

kiowamohican - Great post on inflation. It's the worst possible tax that will hit us, and our children because it's a regressive tax and will hurt the poor and middle class the worst. Those politicians asking for an even bigger stimulus don't seem to ever mention it.

Our loopholes are big enough for a tricycle, not a Mercedes like the rich, or corporations. Exxon made $45 billion last year, about 10% of their income. They paid $36 billion in taxes, about7%. Seems about right, right?

"everybody else that doesn`t have the loopholes the rich do"
-
Loopholes are available to all taxpayers not just the rich.

January 30, Bloomberg News, "The average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third to 17.2% through the first six years of the Bush administration, and their average income doubled to $263,300.00 new IRS data shows." Let`s give them another tax cut, and screw the rest of us more! Whether you want to see it or not, airforce, you`re taking it in the rear like everybody else that doesn`t have the loopholes the rich do.

factcheck: The inflation figures you site, are core inflation figures. Those figures do NOT figure in food and energy prices. Inflation was not a problem under Bush by the core #'s, but did you happen to notice that gas and food exploded in price, when the dollar got devalued from all his (and congress') spending? I seem to remember people going nuts when gas got to $4.00 a gallon
.
The inflation will be seen in massive commodity prices, because almost every single commodity is denominated off the US dollar. The dollar WILL be severely devalued with the insane deficit spending we are now seeing. Such inflation figures will only be partly seen in your core #'s. It's really a tricky thing to measure mathmatically when your in a world economy like we are now. The CPI is a more accurate measure, but still very much flawed.
.
It should be noted that China has also done a massive size stimulus plan. The HUGE difference is they have the $$$ to pay for it, and are not doing it on debt, or by printing. It will be their currency that will eventually gain tremendous strength over the dollar, and create all sorts of problems in the US economy.

So your answer is "no". You want others to pay more (increase their liability) yet you are only willing to pay what you are required to; not stepping up to the plate and leading by example...it is you that say they should pay more, yet you have elected not too.

That`s why it is called a "progressive" tax code, if you can afford it you are supposed to pay more. Their payroll tax is almost non-existant, and that is one of the most "regressive" taxes. Is it fair that because of loopholes in the law the top 400 earners in the country pay27% for taxes, and you and I pay about 40%? It only makes sense to tax where the money is.

"I pay what I am legally obligated to pay,"
-
As do the "rich", yet you want them to pay more and have yet to lead by your own example...nice.

What do you consider high inflation? Like Carters, 6.50, 7.62, 11.22, 13.58. Or Bush, 2.83, 1.59, 2.27, 2.68, 3.39, 3.24, 2.85, 3.85(could have been worse, but Nov. was1.07, and Dec. was .09).

It should also be noted the the biggest tax comes in the form of INFLATION. That is the problem you are going to see after all these TRILLIONS in stimulus. The current government is essentially going to try and inflate it's way out of the recession. IF they are successful (which is very debatable) all you will be doing is taxing everyone beyond belief in the form of inflation; as the dollar devalues. This is exactly what happened under Bush. Government spending increased so much that all the tax cuts he made were off set by the hidden tax of inflation. As it was the devaluing of the dollar that sent oil, and commodities (corn, wheat, rice, basic materials, ext) through the roof. The dollar has of course strengthened as of late because every other world economy has also fallen into recession; and the strength/weakness of the dollar is measured against other major currencies.
.
This "printing your way out of a recession" is essentially going to end up being the biggest tax increase ever seen; as when the dollar finally crashes; it will send oil, corn, wheat (all your commodities) SKY ROCKETING. The price of gas, and food, will be at levels never seen before.
.
See it's MUCH easier to hide a tax via inflation then actually raising tax rates. The government can then come and say "we never raised taxes, and in fact cut taxes for the working class" much like Bush did. What they don't mention is the you got taxed in the form of inflation from their out of control deficit spending which devalued the dollar. Politics is all about dumbing people down, and getting them to believe the spin.

I agree a consumer tax would be much better. Will we ever see it? Doubt it.

whoanellie:
The flat tax is a far better plan then what we have now, but I believe the most "fair" way to tax is via a consumer tax. You totally ELIMINATE the flawed income tax completely. See what many don't realize is that you have loop holes all over the place, and many of your "super wealthy" never pay a dime in taxes because they have no income what so ever, and or they can protect assets from being taxed in foreign accounts, ext. My solution would be to tax CONSUMPTION. Obviously you make exemptions for basic necessities, so you do not crush the poor-lower class. Taxing consumption and not income would generate far bigger revenues then any tax on income. The "super rich" are your biggest spenders, and would still be paying the most in taxes when they buy their yachts, mansions, ext. This is the best way to tax fairly, which avoids the many flaws that exist in an income tax.
.
This is an idea that of course will NEVER happen; as the income tax structure is no longer about collecting revenue, and has simply become a means of social engineering, and retaining political power. Why do you think the tax code is literally THOUSANDS of pages in length?

I pay what I am legally obligated to pay, unlike over 60% of profitable corporations in this country(your own website from a previous post.) By a conservative estimate ,over $350 billion is not payed every year, even though it is owed by individuals and corporations. I don`t like taxes any more than the next guy, but if you want things from the government, federal, state, local, you have to pay. I`ll argue about some of those things(Iraq War) but I pay my obligations.

So factcheck, if you are so sold on higher taxes can I ask how long you have been paying more to the treasury than you are required too? If you are so convinced it is the answer one would assume you are stepping up to the challenge and leading by example.

Flat tax would work only if you taxed all income, interest, dividends, capital gains, etc. All the plans put out so far exempt those things.

I think the idea of a flat tax would sove all the problems. If everyone paid,say, 10%to 15% on everything, it would even out and everyone would be paying their fair share. Of course it would eliminate the IRS and all their stupid rules, but I'm for all that. But good luck getting government to agree with that!

There won't be any taxpayers to pay for this "Economic Recovery" if they don't quit shipping American jobs overseas and across borders. Start by fixing the problem at the source - get rid of free trade agreements that cater to big business and big government so we can keep jobs here before more money gets thrown out the window. Creating jobs payed for by taxpayers when there aren't taxpayers makes no sense whatsoever. Oh wait - I forgot, Bigger Government is going to save us all. Socialism is Communism in sheep's clothing. Put on your seat belts - this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

You don`t pay tax on invested dollars, just on the increase. And yes, it used to be taxed the same as income, why not? People still got rich then, didn`t they?

15% is a number the left really never gets. That's just your capital gains tax rate, and it only applies to gains made on equity positions you hold over a year. Hell; I don't think I have ever owned a stock over 6 months, let alone a year. The real funny part is that hardly any of these so called rich will even be paying ANY capital gains from 2008. As most who were invested long (not short sold) in the market were absolutely demolished in 08. You don't pay any capital gains on losses; and in fact will have tax WRITE OFFS for years to come! So all this talk of increasing capital gains to solve problems is complete pie in the sky. Treasury revenues are going to fall off a cliff from all the losses these "rich" have taken, and just use them as tax write offs. While if you did increase the capital gains to say 40-50% (which is what many on the left want) all one has to do is sell your equity positions within a year time frame. Then you avoid capital gains all together (equity gains you take are then taxed at whatever your income tax bracket is). The whole purpose of the 15% capital gains was to encourage LONG TERM investment. All you do by increasing capital gains is DIS-courage long term investment, which is probably moot at this point anyway; as no one in their right mind is investing long term now anyway, unless you enjoy being punished!

"Why should a guy work 3500 hours a year to make good wages, and pay 25% for taxes, when the rich guy signs a check, sits back, and only pays 15% on his investment, no matter if he makes millions?"
-
More than likely the "invested" dollars by the rich guy have already been taxed via the same income rules you are complaining of. Do you want your invested dollars to be taxed at the same rate as your income? That is why there are different tax rules for income vs. investment.

If paying more tax is the answer I am sure all those that believe this are consistently paying more than they are required because that is what the right thing to do is. Remember, leading by example is the best way! Or is it...not me those that "can afford it" should be paying more.

Great post love my country! Spot on my friend!
.
The one thing I do agree with factcheck on is that Republicans did spent totally out of control when they controlled congress under Bush. Spending was about $2 trillion when Bush took office, and ballooned to over $3 trillion when he left. This out of control government spending is what is going demolish this economy. Read your history and you can read about the many great civilizations of the past who failed because of debt. You want my solution? It would be to cut taxes to spur growth in the private sector, and cut government spending across the board, and then pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution of the US. I know that is a pipe dream, but that would be my solution. I also am not ranting. I really don't care anymore. I'm no longer in politics. I have made a living off taking advantage of screw ups (mostly from government, but also business). I am more certain about this current state of affairs then anything I have analyzed. This $1 TRILLION stimulus will be a catastrophic failure beyond belief. You will be able to take advantage of it big time via positioning your capital in the right places. I just feel sorry for the average family who is going to be crushed in this economy, and leave TRILLIONS in debt to their kids from their futility of a "fix".

Reagan cut taxes, small job gains. Bush cut taxes, smaller job gains(.002%, first term) Hoover cut taxes, no jobs. Clinton raised taxes on those able to pay, big job gains. Oh, I forgot, Carter cut capital gains tax, what happened to him? Taxes in the 1950`s were high, so was the economy. If you`re going to cut taxes, you have to cut spending, and nobody seems to want to do that, Republicans are as bad, or worse, than Democrats! Yeah, give tax breaks for an auto plant so each job that is produced costs $100,000 before even a nickel of tax is collected. Then when, like now, the economy tanks, you watch the auto company stop building cars, or not even finish the plant. It`s happening now. I have no hate towards the rich, but they, a lot, not all, seem to think that they should be treated different from the hourly worker because they have money to invest. Why should a guy work 3500 hours a year to make good wages, and pay 25% for taxes, when the rich guy signs a check, sits back, and only pays 15% on his investment, no matter if he makes millions? If SS hadn`t been raided,and the artificial ceiling done away with, it would be solvent for decades to come. Medicare should be done away with, and national health care in it`s place, the costs are out of control, and the care is sub-standard.

Check your facts. What made this country great were capitalists like Henry Ford, JD Rockefeller, Thomas Edison. Produced millions of jobs and consumers. Yes, they become rich. More power to them. How did they get there ? Investment capital and sweat equity. Not government makework programs and regulations.
-
Tax cuts are proven to spur manufacturing. It's proven everytime an automotive plant locates to the state that provides them the biggest TAX BREAK.
-
On the other hand, socialist programs like stimulus packages fail everytime. Why? Because they don't produce wealth, it's a ponzi scheme our children and grandchildren will be paying for, sadly. Proof ? Social security, medicaid, medicare are all liabilities that will break the backs of the next generation before they even collect their first paycheck.

So the answer is tax more...but funny how there is no indication of LESS government spending. By increasing taxes alone the GDP will lower...this will lower receipts to the treasury resulting in a net loss not a gain.

It`s like I said before, if government gets the blame why can`t they get the credit when something goes right? Oh no, just get out of the way, cut some more regulations, step back and let the bankers and financiers "do their thing!" Pretty soon you have 5,000 J.P. Morgans, and 300 million peons. Give us a constructive idea instead of ranting. Should we cut more taxes? Doesn`t work! Should we raise interest rates? Boy, that would be swell! Or maybe we should turn to the "Most High", and ask Rush what we should do!

The whole $1.50 of stimulus for every $1.00 spent is the old Keynesian theory. Also know as the Keynesian multiplier. The theory, much like everything Kayne's spewed is utter nonsense. Pure theoretic writings that have never been proved. Karl Marx was a great theorist to, who's socialist concepts failed every time they were tried in real markets. If the government really can stimulate like that, then why not spend $4,5,10 trillion? Why just $1 trillion? Could it because you'll have run away inflation; ie: Zimbabwe? hmmmm... Hey; go ahead and try it, I'll personally be laughing my a$$ off when it totally BOMBS!

HAHAH..."Free markets got us in this mess".
That is the most hilarious comment I have ever heard on this board. It was GOVERNMENT who caused this problem. Government was the one tinkered with interest rates, cutting them so low(0.75%) during prosperous times that it created bubbles in real estate and housing. It was government who passed laws to force banks to loan $$ to anyone who could sign their name on a sheet of paper regardless how big of a credit risk they were. And it will be GOVERNMENT who DESTROYS the economy FAR worse then it all ready is! Free markets are what have made made the US the world's biggest economic power. It will be government that transforms the US into massive debt and economic collapse, while former Communist countries like China will be the new world super power as they turn to a free market system.

Kleej - great link; I share every one of that writer's concerns.

It`s a bad time to do some of this stuff, but sooner or later it will have to be done. Repeal the Bush tax cuts now. Put a floor on the price of a gallon of gas, and mandate the money for roads, bridges, etc. Raise, or preferably abolish, the ceiling on the FICA tax, currently around $106,000. Start the process to computerize all medical records in this country, costs money, but will save a lot , and save lives, when it is done. Study to determine how much of a consumption tax(sales) it would take to have a single payer health system, and implement it. While we are doing that, Medicare is in trouble. For a $1.80 more per hundred(employer also) the Medicare system can be solvent for 75 years. When National health care is ready, that tax can be dropped. When the consumption tax is figured out, it can be divided between employees and employers in an equitable way. Have Federal emission standards for vehicles instead of 50 different state ones. Raise liquor and tobacco taxes. Like I said, a bad time to start all this, but repealing the Bush tax cuts would be a start, and not harm any recovery in any way, while providing $226 billion to help stimulate the economy.

Anyone remember the campaign - "spreading the wealth around"..??
Looks like he is merely fulfilling his promises.

What's your solution than factcheck? Instead of whining about it why don't you come up with some solutions.

Free market is destroying our health care system in this country. The insurers take 25% of the money to administer it, and won`t even cover people that need it the most. Richest country in the world, and our health system is one of the worst of industrialized nations. Costs about $8000 for an individual. Pharmaceutical companies spend more for advertising than R&D, and they make twice the profit(% of income) than the oil companies.

Free markets got us into this mess, along with de-regulation.

Mark Zandi, Chief Economist at Moody`s Economy.com, 12/05/08 , "Each dollar of new federal spending would generate roughly $1.50 of additional demand in the economy." This source, cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm .... says, " The federal budget would have been in surplus in 2007 without the tax cuts." "Legislation enacted since 2001 added $3 trillion to deficits between 2001 to 2007, with nearly half due to tax cuts." You can`t have tax cuts without cutting spending, Bush, and Reagan, never learned that. I`d like to see most of the tax cuts out of this stimulus, but Obama seems determined to try and appease the Republicans.

factcheck - 1) The way out of this government caused and Federal Reserve caused economic collapse is to let free markets work. 2) Tax cuts don't cause deficits, over spending causes deficits.

You will only invest money to make jobs if there is a market for the product or service from that job. There is no market right now, no job creating going on. When Bush first pushed through those cuts, we were warned about their consequences, large deficits. The Congress went ahead anyway, and look where we are.

President Obama got off to a great start and like so many, he's already taken a wrong turn in the road. http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary...

Go to Huffington Post and look for articles by Miles Mogulescu. I have seen these things stated other places but my memory isn`t what it used to be.

factcheck, can you post links to the info in your last 2 posts? Interesting stuff and I want to read more.
Thanks!

Each time the democrats win the presidency, the very first thing we hear is that the Republicans must co-operate and work with the democrats. When we have a Republican president, the dems do all they can to block and criticize and make life miserable for everyone. In case they haven't heard, most streets run both ways.

Those tax cuts have really been doing the job of "investing and creating jobs" well lately , haven`t they? The rich, who got those cuts, generally save the money, they don`t spend it like the lower and middle classes do. The cuts will expire in two years anyway, and that extra $226 billion would come in handy!

factcheck - You want to repeal tax cuts ? Seriously ? And take their money in taxes that should be used to invest and create real jobs, not makework government jobs, in the U.S. ?

$226 billion if they repeal those cuts now instead of letting them run out in two years. Government spending $100 billion increases GDP $150 billion, and corporate tax cuts of $100 billion increase GDP by $30 billion. Which is smarter? Also, the government spending creates more jobs then corporate tax cuts, at least 5 times more. Miles Mogulescu, "All Tax Cuts Are Not Equal", Huffington Post

$225 billion if you repeal Bush`s tax cuts, CBO estimates. Those are cuts for the rich that are just saved and not spent like lower and middle class tax cuts. I hate to use the CBO numbers because that is what the Republicans are doing now, even though they only looked at one third of the stimulus, and that was when it first came out, not now. But, according to CBO scoring, that $200 million for "contraceptives" would save $700 million in the long run.

"they should repeal the Bush tax cuts now and not wait for them to expire."
-
Revenues from taxes are the result of economic growth not tax rate increases. Repealing the cuts (raising taxes) would offset any corresponding growth and would make the economy worse.

"That would pay for 25% of the stimulus"
-
Not even close...

How does birth control create jobs and stimulate the economy? How does spending 200 million on the National Mall create jobs or stimulate the economy? This bill is totally loaded with pork and is only going to get worse. Tax cuts do create jobs and do bring in revenue.

That`s not a bad idea, also they should repeal the Bush tax cuts now and not wait for them to expire. That would pay for 25% of the stimulus. They are getting there chance to be heard, now if they make the most of it, instead of just saying "no", it could make a difference.

A small sample of Republican ideas shot down for the stimulas package by democrats..."Exempt unemployment benefits from income taxation in 2008 and 2009."

"I didn't see in the article any concessions from the Republicans"
-
What is there for the Republicans to give up, nothing in the current stimulus package was written by or included ideas from them; it is a one sided partisan bill proposed by Democrats. If they are so proud of it why do they want Republican support?

This is called bipartisanship... well, sort of... I didn't see in the article any concessions from the Republicans but rather some demands for more tax cuts (?!) as well to strip some of the definite gunk out of the bill.
.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- On the eve of a key vote, President Barack Obama privately promised Republicans he stands ready to accept changes in the $825 billion economic stimulus legislation, invoked Ronald Reagan to rebut conservative critics and urged lawmakers to "put politics aside" in the interest of creating jobs.
.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/O...
.
Incidentally, the President went down to Capitol Hill instead of asking the Republican caucus to come to the White House.
.
Obama's call for bipartisanship was just rhetoric, huh? Ya just gots skooled by Barry Hussein, didnt ya?

So exactly how does $200 million dollars in abortion money stimulate the economy? What else is in this monstrous spending plan that has no business being there?

Pat-- Obama is acting like a leader should. This is a TEAM effort! Obama made it clear that we as a country must unite and put our differences aside and work towards a common vision. It's going to take the citizens efforts, one by one to get it done. Obama is leading by example. A leader does just that. If people are going to buy into what a leader says, the leader needs to being a walking, talking billboard for what he professes. I've had my concerns regarding Obama prior to him being elected, however, I'm very impressed with his abililty to lead and not act like a manager. I'm praying that the "shark infested" waters of our government doesn't start wearing President Obama down like has happened in about every other presidential regime. I hope he's the leader we're all counting on him to be!

Obama is the best thing to happen to the U.S.A . in the last 8 years.. He is already working better with the republicans than bush every did with the democrats.

RAF: You can spew numbers all day long. That doesn't change the fact that the Dems' control the House, Senate, and White House. They were elected into these offices by the majority of the voters, thus creating a mandate. It's up to them how they choose to exercise it."
-
Please show where I said they don't have the ability or right to do that. The mandate issue was in dispute of another poster comment using false facts. I do know that the current administration will run with the perceived mandate while still blaming the past administration. The end facts will be in any results from the new policies; then the next election cycle will either add to the dem party majority or as history has shown in the past a correction in the majority will be made.

If you are going to blame Presidents for bad times, you must give them credit for the good ones.

Neither party should boast. It's not a party, president, or government that creates jobs. It's the private sector that does that. Government only stands as an obstacle for the private sector to function. In theory government can create all the jobs it wants. You can hire a million people to dig ditches, and then hire a million more to go fill them, and print the money to pay their wage. Such policy will create jobs, but won't do anything to grow the economy.

That bodes well! All the Democrats "have been lucky!" I`m sure if the Republicans had the top five of ten they would be crowing!

The Carville statement in of itself is ridiculous. Like many liberal Democrats they don't realize that it's BUSINESS that creates jobs, prosperity, and wealth, not any president. Many Presidents are simply lucky, and come in office under a positive business cycle, then take credit for the jobs which business created.

I actually agree with Lakennedy:
I say let them do everything they want. They democrats won all the majorities, therefor they have a dictator style power. The Republicans also had that sort of power from 2002-2006 and did nothing but squander it with outrageous amounts of spending, mandates, and regulations that helped lead to the recession you now see.
.
You can throw around all the numbers you wish, but the fact is that the basic philosophy of government being offered up as the economic solution to problems has been a proven failure over and over throughout history. The government getting in the middle of this recession, and trying to fix it with massive deficit spending, is going to lead to the biggest economic collapse ever seen. As long as the government does not ban short selling of the markets, you will be able to take advantage (even more so then many all ready have done the past year and a half) of this horrific policy that will be coming down the pike.

RAF: You can spew numbers all day long. That doesn't change the fact that the Dems' control the House, Senate, and White House. They were elected into these offices by the majority of the voters, thus creating a mandate. It's up to them how they choose to exercise it.

Carville is now a "talking head" on TV, just like Karl rove, so what? Look it up, what he says is true if he said it during the 2000 election. If he said it recently, he has one too many Democrats, but the top four are still Dems.

Great article re: gov't!!!

http://chrisbrady.typepad.com/my_weblog/...

When taxpayer money is transferred to makework projects created by the government, people assigned to those projects will take the money. However, jobs are never "created" out of thin air by the government.
-
By the way, Carville was Clinton's advisor and a Democrat.

The GREATER THE FREEDOM...The GREATER THE WEALTH. The GREATER the GOVERNMENT...The greater the poverty. Simple.
Along with the freedom, we need morality first!
Without it, we can't establish character and integrity. That's why our government is in the shape it's in. We don't have people with a sense of right or wrong making the decisions for the good of the many. They're making decisions on what best suits the few..THEM!
It should never just be minimized to just politics either. Politicians are citizens of this country just like the rest of us. They're taught to be thugs and thieves. We're simply lacking MORAL AUTHORITY in our society. Until that's re-established, we're in for a long economic downturn. Different age!

I don`t know if he knows something about Obama`s presidency that no one else knows, but we`ll see!

Signing off with this, "In the last 50 years there have been ten presidents, 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, the Democrats rank one, two, three, four, and five on that list for job creation." James Carville

Something we can agree on is that what we all want is an increased standard of living for Americans. This only happens when a good or service is created, then workers are paid and the upfront risk taker receives profits. To the extent their are increasing taxes, regulations and other government interference, there is less factory and other business investment by risk takers.

People working for good wages make a wealthy country, not just the upper 1% that live off investments. In order for that UCLA study to be right, you have to assume that if left alone the economy would have grown at 16.9% GDP for four years, 1933-36. The best recorded growth of GDP was 1941-43, and that was a little over 14% a year, during a wartime economy.

lovemycountry~ WELL SAID!

I agree big government socialist programs fail for alot of reasons. The underlying reason is this: Government programs don't create wealth for a society, they redistribute it, resulting in a continuing flat or declining GDP. The investors end up paying higher taxes to pay for social programs, so they don't invest it in production capacity. The moral hazard of these programs is that, human nature being what it is, most people choose to take workfare or welfare vs. working hard for a job. It's the opposite of what made this country great.

FDR pulled back in 1937, cut WPA and other programs because of deficit fears. The government did push subprime loans, and didn`t listen to the financial officers that warned about it because the lenders, builders, real estate speculators, were all rolling in money, well on paper anyway! Social security would be solvent for generations if it had been left alone, and an artificial ceiling set on how much income you made until the fica tax was stopped. Why limit it to $102,000 of income? Why should people below that pay 12.4% and above that pay less, it is a very regressive tax that way. If the government hadn`t raided the fund , it would be fine, but they used the money for other things, and left IOU`s in it`s place.

The New Deal was the biggest government socialist program in U.S. history. FDR's government intervention wasn't slowed by anyone and it prolonged the depression. To illustrate how government socialism programs never work, look at Social Security, part of FDRs New Deal. It's due to implode in 2012, like all ponzi schemes.
-
This current economic crisis was brought on by government mandating subprime loans, 2) risk guarantees by government backed Fannie and Freddie Mac, and 3) the Federal Reserve Private Bank Group's articially low interest rates. This cheap money for the home buyer was the fuel for the fire.

FDR`s advisors got conservative on him, and he listened to them. If he hadn`t cut the WPA and started worrying about deficits, he would have pulled us out of the depression sooner. Free markets and de-regulation helped get us into this mess, and they are not going to reverse themselves without help.

Factcheck - not quite right. The DC politicians will always try because it helps them grow government and they grab more power. However, government intervention never works to grow the economy. The big example is a UCLA study shows us FDR prolonged the great depression by 6 years with intervention. The Federal Reserve Private Bank Group has caused the last 3 bubbles (boom and busts) with articically low interest rates. Eventually the economy will come back because of market forces, however, the government is slowing the recovery.

The thing is nobody KNOWS what is going to work until it`s tried. They can`t just sit and wait. Reagan tried tax cuts early in 1981, and they didn`t work. Volcker loosened up the money supply late in 1982, and the recession eased in a few months. They have to try, or they might as well go home.

The results are the same from both parties. Pres Obama is bombing Pakistan, increasing troops in Afghanistan. Reps and Dems are voting YES on bank bailouts and stimulus packages that don't work. Both parties are voting to tax our children and grandchildren into deep debt before their first job. Only the meaningless rhetoric is different.

It`s going to take a long time to get out of this economic mess, and if the Republicans want to help, they better step up, or they will lose more seats in 2010. If they just obstruct, they might end up destroying their party for many years. All of a sudden they are conservatives again after years of profligate spending, it just doesn`t ring true.

It might help things if Congress & the Senate had the same Social Security retirement programme that the average citizen has. Their medical benefits should be the same too. Then too, their pay should be based on the amount of work they do. (Of course that means some of them wouldn't get any pay then.)

I think Buffet was stating the facts as he knows them. He seem`s to have a good head on his shoulders concerning finances!

I don`t know why the Dems would even listen to the Repubs considering the fact that the market historically does better under them than the Republicans. From Nixon to Bush2 the market went up 7.1% under Repubs, and 11.1% under Dems. "Over the last three plus decades, the income of richest Americans has risen at a rate four times faster under Democrats than under Republicans." hnn.us/articles/8301.html Under Reagan, the income to the government only rose by 1-2% from the Carter years, as a percentage of GDP. But, the deficit as a percentage of GDP rose 20% in those years. The last " fiscal conservative" we had for President must have been Clinton!

Buffet’s comments are misleading without him providing what the “source” of his income was for the year he is comparing to his secretary. If his income source had a large portion of municipal bonds, had business loss for ???, depreciation adjustments, and so on; then it could be explained better. But his blanket statement without facts is vague.

airforce, the site you cite says that corporate tax rates are falling, and they are. In 1965 corporations paid 34% of all taxes paid, and individuals 66%. By 2000, that had changed to 18% for corporations, and 82% for individual taxpayers. In 2000 60% of corporations , profitable one`s included, paid no tax. Now it is about 70%. The top 400 income earners in this country, even before the Bush tax cuts, only paid 27% of their income for taxes. The rest of us paid 40%! 91% would be ridiculous, but there is no reason, as Warren Buffet says, why he pays a smaller percentage of his income on taxes than his secretary does! In order to have term limits you first must change how campaigns are financed, only independent(rich)people can afford to run, and hold, office now. In Arizona, full time state legislators are paid $24,000 a year, a $6,000 raise was voted down by the voters in November. I don`t know how a person that is married, with a child or two, can afford to serve unless they already have money to begin with. Same in Washington, they have to keep up two residences. I`ll give Reagan credit for doing exactly what he said he was going to during his first election campaign. He raised the Defense budget so high, without cutting back enough on other spending, that he did explode the deficit. If you listened to his numbers when he was running, that is exactly what was going to happen!

If you were scared about where Bush had us going read this - It looks like almost every special interest group who ever wanted money is getting their dream come true. Keep in mind this is all our tax dollars, our kids tax dollars and our grand children's tax dollars. 50 mil for the Smithsonian, 650 mil so people can watch tv,600 mil for new cars for the fed plus billions being spent on lining govt. officials pockets for oversight and painting Washington monuments? It hasn't even been a full week yet but I'm sure the liars, lobbyists and tax evaders filling up Obama's cabinet will be able to head us in the right direction. http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/1...

RetiredAirForce -- I will certainly agree that Congressional term limits /might/ go a long ways towards solving the problems -- /if/ lobbyists lose their influence as well. We will have to respectfully disagree on other issues.
.
My source of information was the GAO's own report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08957.pdf
.
"We reported that from 1989 through 2000 foreign-controlled corporations were more likely to report zero U.S. income tax liability than U.S.-controlled corporations with a majority of both types of corporations reporting no liability. We said that corporations may not report U.S income taxes for a variety of reasons including current-year operating losses, tax credits, and transfer pricing abuses."
...
"We also report separately for large corporations – those with at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in gross receipts – because, though they account for less than one percent of all corporations, they make up over 90 percent of all assets reported on corporate returns."
...
"… large FCDCs were more likely to report no tax liability over multiple years than large USCCs …"
...
"Percentages of FCDCs and USCCs That Reported No Tax Liability, Tax Years 1998 through 2005 shows that 60-70% of all foreign controlled and U.S. controlled corporations paid no taxes and that 25-55% of large foreign-controlled and U.S. controlled corporations paid no taxes."
...
"Percentage of Large FCDCs and USCCs That Reported No Tax Liability for Multiple Years between 1998 and 2005 shows that 72% of large FCDCs and 57% of large USCCs reported at least one year of no tax liability between 1998 and 2005. About 57% of large FCDCs and 42% of large USCCs reported multiple years (2 or more) of no tax liability, while 34% of large FCDCs and 24% of large USCCs reported no tax liability for at least half of the period (4 or more years)."
...
All in all, between 1998 and 2005, at least half of the corporations that made a profit and that paid U.S. tax (or were legally bound to do so) avoided paying taxes on their income.
.
An illuminating discussion here at the Gazette, as usual, and thanks for keeping me honest; hope that you feel the same!

KiowaMohican - From the data that the government itself compiles, the 80s saw cuts compared to Vietnam and Korea so I do not subscribe to the school of thought that we "outspent" the Russians at the end of the Cold War during the Reagan Era. Certainly, spending and a technology gap were key contributors to the end of the Cold War -- the Russians, however, were worried about an American first strike until nearly the end: see the MX missile, SDI, North Atlantic submarine deployments, Pershing missile deployments in Europe, and particularly c.f. Operation Able Archer 83; however, internal collapse of that system was evident even in the late 60s and very clear by the early 80s, Reagan's policies (tempered as they were from some of the hawks in his administration) accelerated the collapse.
.
If one includes "emergency" funding and national defense outlays one reaches approximately 8% of discretionary spending during the last eight years; again nowhere near historical highs. Your point is spot on; however, regarding other discretionary spending being out of control. As I stated before, it is my belief that in conjunction with some kind of tax increase, the level of provided services needs to be adjusted. There is of course disagreement on this point.
.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2... etc.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military... for some nice graphs

Revenues to the Treasury actually exploded bigger then they ever have under Reagan's policy. You can look it up, if you don't believe. You had deficits NOT because of the tax cuts, but because big increases in military spending for the cold war, and to get those defense spending increases, Reagan had to give the Democrats who controlled congress all sorts of increases in social spending projects. It was SPENDING that exploded and created deficits, NOT falling revenues from the tax cuts. The tax cuts spurred economic growth at a rate not seen since WWII, and that growth made revenues to the treasury explode. The administration before Reagan (Jimmy carter) was a Keynesian economy that is what we are embarking upon now with Obama. It was one of the worse economic disaster since the 30's. You had the "misery index" of double digit unemployment, inflation, and interest rates.
.
Hey; believe what ever you want. Just don't say some didn't warn you when the whole economy is in shambles a few years from now.

And hey, even if your strategy fails, and you loose everything. Not to worry, the government will be there to bail you out!
I'm loving this hope, change, new tone!

Let Obama pass everything he wants. This just gives one an even bigger opportunity to make huge gains shorting the markets; as the New Deal policies he will ram through will lead to the biggest economic collapse ever seen since the great depression. I personally can't wait!

"As far as asking others to pay 91%, I never did so." --- You certanly did. Your full quote follows..."we should have strong, modern infrastructure; and we can pay for it (and pay down the debt, just as we did after WWII) by raising top marginal tax rates to 91%." --- As I stated if you want others to pay this amount step up to the plate first!

"The deficit has simply mushroomed"
-
It will continue to do this until unabashed spending by those (everyone) in Washington is corrected. You, I, and our fellow citizens are required to live within our means on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly basis. Yet, we (collectively), the ones who hire and fire our representatives have a continuing habit of keeping these same people in power. During the last election the US congress had the lowest approval rating at anytime below 20%. But we re-hired all but 23 members over 90% (not including the 33 who retired). Your attempt at defining insanity is more germane to this pandemic than blaming one party for the perceived reason of the financial crisis our government is in. These politicians are more worried about being re-elected than performing the tasks we send them to Washington to perform; but until we hold these “employees” accountable nothing will change. Changing the party in charge and blaming the old party does not fix the problem…there is only one way to fix it. And as of this date we the people have not chosen to do it. Until term limits are imposed nothing will change.

"Now, the /effective/ corporate tax rates have been nearly zero since the Reagan tax cuts."
-
Not sure were you are getting your information.
You might like to read http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.....
This shows rates well over 20% and reciepts to the US to show this.

I humbly stand corrected on the percentage of the popular vote that Bush won in 2004.
.
As far as asking others to pay 91%, I never did so. I stated that I consider myself an Eisenhower Republican and would support such a plan to reduce the total outstanding debt. Besides, unless one made greater than $2.3 million (2008) dollars per year, one would not be in such a bracket as existed in the late 1950s... and even if one were, there are currently /plenty/ of ways to reduce one's tax.
.
My tax bracket pays 33%; after deductions last year I paid only 21%. Many corporations pay little to no tax... good for them and good for me, it's currently legal. My point was that tax rates are nowhere near their historic highs. If the country wishes to reduce it's total outstanding debt (as well it's annual deficit), I believe that tax rates should be increased and as well services need to reduced or adjusted to appropriate levels.
.
Others will argue, certainly quite correctly in some cases, that if tax rates were raised, businesses will just move overseas to pay less tax, less in wages, and quite likely (whether in a developing economy or in another industrialized nation) not have to pick up the cost of employee health care. To my understanding, in gross, the Republicans would have /effective/ tax rates remain nearly zero for corporations in a bid to keep them (headquartered) within the United States; the Democrats, in gross, seem to be trying to level the field not with the smaller, less developed economies but rather those of the other industrialized nations, e.g. the other members of the G8. In thirty years, and it brings no thrill to my heart, the only party that seems serious about reducing the total outstanding debt are the Democrats.
.
Now, the /effective/ corporate tax rates have been nearly zero since the Reagan tax cuts. What has happened in that time? The deficit has simply mushroomed as has outsourcing of manufacturing and even service jobs (e.g. call centers). So it would seem that even the lure of /effective/ low tax rates are not keeping jobs within the U.S.
.
Why not try something different? One definition of insanity is to do the same over and over and over but expect a different result. There is in the modern Republican party's playbook never a good time to raise taxes. Going to war? Lower taxes. Running a surplus? Lower taxes. Trade deficit increasing? Lower taxes. Interest rates falling? Lower taxes. Interest rates spiking? Lower taxes.

"Step up to the plate and lead, send the government 91% of your income before asking others to do the same."

I'll step up, as soon as I make enough money to pay into the top MARGINAL tax rate, as written in the original quote.

"raising top marginal tax rates to 91%."
-
Step up to the plate and lead, send the government 91% of your income before asking others to do the same.

"the subtlety in my original statement: "not unlike". This is not at all the same thing as "just exactly like Reagan omg!!!!!11111one!!!1". I think my meaning was quite clear to anyone but the most partisan of supporters."
---
Your original comment was based on a false conclusion. Stating he won the election on a margin "Bush could not dream of". And now you want to complain that it would be quite clear to anyone but a partisan? Your statement was completely left based (partisan) and know you can't stand the critique...nice.

"As far as the numbers game, it's a game one could play all night. Obama is the first President since Bush in 1988 to attain a majority (i.e. >= 50%). " ----- Wrong again, in 2004 GW Bush received 50.7%. Any other facts you care to throw around?

The revelation came this morning, when CIA Director George Tenet was on the stand. Timothy Roemer, a former Democratic congressman, asked him when he first found out about the report from the FBI's Minnesota field office that Zacarias Moussaoui, an Islamic jihadist, had been taking lessons on how to fly a 747. Tenet replied that he was briefed about the case on Aug. 23 or 24, 2001.

Roemer then asked Tenet if he mentioned Moussaoui to President Bush at one of their frequent morning briefings. Tenet replied, "I was not in briefings at this time." Bush, he noted, "was on vacation." He added that he didn't see the president at all in August 2001. During the entire month, Bush was at his ranch in Texas. "You never talked with him?" Roemer asked. "No," Tenet replied. By the way, for much of August, Tenet too was, as he put it, "on leave."

By Laurence McQuillan, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Six months after taking office, President Bush will begin a month-long vacation Saturday that is significantly longer than the average American's annual getaway. If Bush returns as scheduled on Labor Day, he'll tie the modern record for presidential absence from the White House, held by Richard Nixon at 30 days. Ronald Reagan took trips as long as 28 days.

All of our congressmen and senators should be voted out for their poor quality work. Emperor Obama needs to be put in his place.

And yet no comment on, say, signing statements from our strict constructionalist brethren. Huh.
.
As far as the numbers game, it's a game one could play all night. Obama is the first President since Bush in 1988 to attain a majority (i.e. >= 50%). Bush, as we all recall, did not even receive the plurality of votes in 2000. If 2.1% of the popular vote makes such a difference, then Reagan never achieved what Nixon did in 1972.
.
You'll note the subtlety in my original statement: "not unlike". This is not at all the same thing as "just exactly like Reagan omg!!!!!11111one!!!1". I think my meaning was quite clear to anyone but the most partisan of supporters.
.
FYI, myself, I consider an Eisenhower Republican: the government should stay out of dictating social behavior; we should have a strong military and project that presence around the globe; we should have strong, modern infrastructure; and we can pay for it (and pay down the debt, just as we did after WWII) by raising top marginal tax rates to 91%.

"Having won this election by margins of which Bush could scarcely dream" --- Yes that vast difference of 2.1%, nobody can dream that big.
-
"Having won this election by margins...I'd say he has a "mandate" not unlike Reagan in 1984." --- Not even close, Reagan won all states but one.

I have an idea for the Republicans. Let's take a vote on which direction the country should go in. Oh wait, we did and the GOP LOST!!! Not once, twice. American cars makers say they are glad the government will be buying newer more fuel efficient American made cars for their employees. The Republicans slogan should have been "America Last".

Almost as bipartisan as these little gems...
.
"However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses." -- GWB, October 30, 2006.
.
130 signing statements that comprise over 1,100 challenges to laws passed by our Congress.
.
Shall I go on...? All this article states is that Obama will "listen carefully" to any Republican plan, promising nothing. Having won this election by margins of which Bush could scarcely dream and that even Clinton did not attain, I'd say he has a "mandate" not unlike Reagan in 1984.
.
Hmmm... sounds like the Republicans suddenly want some "preconditions" before they "negotiate" with the President. Even when the Republicans had plans that they wished to push forward with which President Bush did not or would not agree, I do not recall this kind of whining and bickering; it's pretty sad, really.

Right on, joeflint.

Here's one possible explanation: The "deficit hawks" are conservatives in name only. They have no problem with looting the U.S. Treasury, so long as they are the ones choosing the looters. Having lost their jobs as bouncers at the door of the Treasury, they now tend to see things a little differently. If everyone could just stop thinking of them as conservatives and instead think of them as the oligarchs they truly are, then their seemingly contradictory actions would make perfect sense.

So much for working together and bi-partisan ship. He is a lefty with a lefty agenda. Shouldn't suprise anybody.

"You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the -- after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror." -- President George W Bush, White House press conference, November 4, 2004.
.
It's too bad these supposed "deficit hawks" have been AWOL for the past 8, nay, 16, nay, 30 years? Where were these "hawks" just three short months ago when the banks came with their hands out and were given a nearly blank check for $350,000,000,000 so far and likely as much yet to come?

What happened to working together? Oh yeah...that was nothing but rhetoric. What a joke! More spending...and that twenty bucks a week savings in taxes will cost us forty next year. I'm pretty sure that would be considered a bad investment in economics class.

Does this suprise anyone? Don't see how this would be considered news.