Welcome to PatsFans.com

Hillary Favors Siezing The Assets of The Working Class

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsWickedPissah, Feb 16, 2006.

  1. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,777
    Likes Received:
    683
    Ratings:
    +1,862 / 19 / -12

    Disable Jersey

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_us&refer=columnist_shlaes&sid=ae_qkIMkzC88

    President George W. Bush argued that general tax cuts -- as opposed to targeted ones -- would be good for the economy. He liked marginal rate cuts to the income tax, and he sought cuts for lower earners. He also fought for cuts in the capital-gains tax rate and taxes on dividends. Clinton could have gone along. She didn't. Mechanically, she questioned the premise of the Bush tax cuts: ``Will we meet the challenges of our time or will we squander this moment on a budget that puts politics first and people last?''

    As E.J. McMahon, an economist at the Manhattan Institute, points out, the tax cuts did turn out to put ``people first.'' Lower earning households saw great savings: a single parent of two children under age 17 saw an effective 84 percent cut in tax liability. In 2005, McMahon estimates, New Yorkers got to keep $14.6 billion in earnings that they would have had to pay in taxes without the changes in the federal law.

    What's more, the Bush tax cuts were followed by both market and economic comebacks, just as Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin's capital-gains rate cut was followed by the boom of the late 1990s. Federal tax rate cuts did a lot to offset state and local tax increases. Using something called the State Tax Analysis Modeling Program, a software program that tries out different tax scenarios, McMahon estimates that without the federal cuts New York City would have lost jobs. Instead employment grew.

    McMahon figures that for the six-year period of Clinton's first term New Yorkers will have kept $60 billion that they would have otherwise paid in taxes. Lots of people in New York don't get a Wall Street bonus. This tax cut was their bonus. Deprive them of it, and you limit the bonuses to Wall Street. You favor the rich in exactly the way that Clinton opposes.


    Maybe you wealthy trust fund or Hollywood elite liberals (Kennedy, Kerry, Streisand, Spielberg...) DO get Wall Street style bonuses but us working class folks need tax cuts to keep OUR money for OUR families and to stimulate the economy and provide more jobs.
     
  2. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,369
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +78 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    You make some good points, but it's an awfully short-sighted strategy, and is almost completely politically motivated. As none other than Alan Greenspan said, tax and spend is not a good strategy, however, don't tax but spend is a far worse one.

    What are we spending in the Middle East? 1 billion a week was the last I heard. Where is this money coming from? It's borrowed.

    We're racking up massive debt on the federal "credit card". The bills will come due, and taxes will have to come back up. Of course W. doesn't care, because there will probably be a Democrat in the White House when it happens, and this cycle will start over again, Republican screws the nation, Democrat comes in, gets house in order, but in doing so gives a boost to the next Republican (I will lower taxes, he bleats to the sheep), who wins and starts screwing the country again.

    And try to sell the benefits of a tax cut to the tens of thousands of federal non-military employees who have lost their jobs to make up the shortfall.
     
  3. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,777
    Likes Received:
    683
    Ratings:
    +1,862 / 19 / -12

    Disable Jersey

    I agree that tax and spend as typified by this administration is a bad strategy. There is plenty of pork, e.g. Highway Bill, Prescription Drugs for Geezers, that could be cut. War is indeed expensive.

    Remember, EVERY tax cut has been followed by an INCREASE in govt revenues.
     
  4. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,184
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +293 / 12 / -10

    Pissah, I'm sure you can see how the author is mixing up numbers to make a political point.

    First, wht does this really mean: "Lower earning households saw great savings: a single parent of two children under age 17 saw an effective 84 percent cut in tax liability."

    For poor people, income taxes fell by 5%, for the middle class by 2%, and for the rich by 5% (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm). Now, the poor also get earned income tax credits and other benefits, but how what salary and what benefits do they need to see their tax liability decline by 84%. Pissah? Can you answer that one.

    After that, the author goes onto say "New Yorkers will have kept $60 billion that they would have otherwise paid in taxes. Lots of people in New York don't get a Wall Street bonus. This tax cut was their bonus. Deprive them of it, and you limit the bonuses to Wall Street." Of course, his article fooled you into believing that an enormous part of that money went to the poor (and perhaps middle class), while the more likely scenario is the extremely wealthy who saw their taxes fall by 5% got the bulk of that money.

    Once again you appear to be playing politics rather than presenting a thoughtful point of view, but perhaps I'm wrong, and you'll demonstrate the author's implication that the tax cut was especially helpful to the poor and middle class.
     
  5. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,777
    Likes Received:
    683
    Ratings:
    +1,862 / 19 / -12

    Disable Jersey

    Lower earning family with 2 kids: the bottom starting tax bracket # got raised and the kids deduction raised.

    You calling me playing politics is a hoot. I guess you don't own a mirror.
     
  6. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,184
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +293 / 12 / -10

    You're talking about a single parent with two kids and income of $200/week. That's right, those people are really cleaning up thanks to Bush's tax cuts. Boy, I bet their using their savings to support the Republican Party. What share of the $60 billion would you guess they got? And, I'm pretty sure their big tax savings came from the Clinton era tax cuts in the mid-90s, not Bush's tax cut.
     
  7. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0


    You forget to mention things like food stamps and after school programs and housing assistance being slashed to pay for this tax cut. So that particular family ends up with a massive net loss.

    What exactly is the cost of leaving say, a 9 year old alone at home while the parents work because the susidised after school program the kid used to attend is gone? Some might call that program priceless.

    Bush's domestic tax/spending strategy is so purely political its not even funny. Just look at how much blue states pay in taxes vs what they get in services as opposed to how things work for the red states. Your nightmare scenerio of a liberal confiscating money from one group and giving it to another is happening right now. Its just not based on finances, its based on who falls in line with the neo-cons master plan vs who won't.
     
  8. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,777
    Likes Received:
    683
    Ratings:
    +1,862 / 19 / -12

    Disable Jersey

    That income is way below NY minimum wage. They'd be on public assistance. Nice straw man though.

    Notice how you in your 'non-partisan' manner attribute all that is good to the Clinton era.
     
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,184
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +293 / 12 / -10

    Explain who got the 84% tax break if it's not people in the 10% income bracket (wages under $14K), and also please answer the question as to what share of the $60 billion do you think those people got? You seem to be avoiding this isssues.

    If you look at tax trend charts, the big drop came in Clinton's era. I'm basing that on figure 1 on this page:

    http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/policy_briefs/brief5/
     
  10. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    That is very perceptive. Thanks
     
  11. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ratings:
    +102 / 7 / -14

    #37 Jersey


    Personal f'n responsibility, it that a lost cause in this country now?
     
  12. dryheat44

    dryheat44 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,369
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +78 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

    That's not the argument. We were talking about if the tax cuts help the poor. "It's their own fault for being poor" doesn't qualify as a relevant statement.
     
  13. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,777
    Likes Received:
    683
    Ratings:
    +1,862 / 19 / -12

    Disable Jersey

    10 characters for the bbs gods
     
  14. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey


    That's very true, but it goes for both parties.
    I've heard the arguement for tax high/spend high, tax low/spend high, and tax high/spend low, ...but what ever happenned to the idea of tax low/spend low? Are we so unaccustomed to it that we can't even let it enter the discussion?

    Our present set of circumstances includes massive federal and state governments being fueled by huge revenues. I honestly have no problems helping poor families temporarily (say 6-8 yrs MAX) or disabled people as much as they need, but the government has to stop subsidizing massive or small corporate profits and foreign military machines as well as our own.
     
  15. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I'm for tax cuts up the wazoo.

    What about the deficit you say?

    Easy, reduce spending. Another key area where I disagree with the current admin.

    Am I saying have absolutely NO safety net for the underpriveleged or disabled? Of course not. I'm not heartless but I do believe that a good percentage of those using our social services do so simply because they can. Much like a crutch. Remove it and see how quickly they learn the cardinal rule of economics; "No workey, No eatey"
     
  16. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The very basic difference between cons and libs here is their understanding of how taxes effect the economy and government income. Libs think that to increase govt income, you must take a bigger piece of the pie. Cons think that if you take a smaller piece of the pie, the pie grows and you end up getting more.

    None of that has anything to do with expenditures, which is a whole 'nother discussion.
     
  17. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,184
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +293 / 12 / -10

    I don't think that's what it's about. The best description I've read describes conservatives as believing in the strong father -- the one who takes care of his family, has all the answers, makes the tough decisions, and expects everyone to follow his rules. Liberals, on the other hand, believe in the nuturing parent, who can be male or female, who helps her family discover themselves and realize their potential, who guides the family and is guided by them. I'm oversimplifying, of course, but I think the metaphors are pretty accurate.
     
  18. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I won't quibble too much with your chosen metaphors, but I don't see what they have to do with taxes.
     
  19. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,777
    Likes Received:
    683
    Ratings:
    +1,862 / 19 / -12

    Disable Jersey

    I'd say that they're quite wrong, at least in many instances that I know of. Of course only Patters can cite his life experience and have it be valid.
     
  20. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,184
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +293 / 12 / -10

    Actually, Pissah, it's based on a theory by George Lakoff, who I believe is a cognitive scientist, and the theory is useful because it explains the Republican political strategy and successes quite well. It says conservatives believe in the strong father, liberals believe in the nuturing parent, and moderates are somewhere in the middle. The Republicans have reached out to the moderates by framing their arguments in a nuturing way. For instance, partial birth abortion, which is a procedure that affects very few women, became a major issue for Republicans because it was used to portray Republican opposition to women's rights as compassionate. Terms like conservative compassion and tax relief (as opposed to cuts) were also used in a similar way. His ideas are highly regarded by a number of thinkers and political leaders.

    So, your snippy little comment, backed up by nothing, not even an alternative, I'm afraid isn't very convincing or, for that matter, worthy of you. What do you think is the thread that links conservative (or liberal) views on abortion, taxes, foreign policy, gun control, and tort reform?
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>