Author Topic: Are Democrats Crazy?  (Read 10685 times)

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,392
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Are Democrats Crazy?
« Reply #50 on: December 10, 2007, 06:15:29 AM »
For one thing, it leaves more money in your pocket.  Additionally, it brings in more revenue for the gov., so less "needs" to be borrowed. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,447
Re: Are Democrats Crazy?
« Reply #51 on: December 10, 2007, 09:00:50 AM »
Rile,
C'mon.  You are brighter than your comment.  And you are old enough to know better than to make the comment you did.   Lower taxes are the engine of opportunity for business and prosperity and you know that.  The trouble is, when lower taxes provide the impetus and cranks up the economy, the bastards we elect go on a spending spree with all the new money the government gets.  It's the spending that's the problem and that crosses party lines. 

Without hijacking the thread in that direction (please) if the military expenditures were not there, the goobermint would be rolling in cash (in theory).  In reality they would have found some other way to piss it away.

Google The Contract With America.  If they would follow that, AND get serious about expoliting the resources we have in N. America What do you suppose would be the condition of our nation?
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,447
Re: Are Democrats Crazy?
« Reply #52 on: December 10, 2007, 09:03:24 AM »
Rile,
C'mon.  You are brighter than your comment.  And you are old enough to know better than to make the comment in the manner that you did.   Lower taxes are the engine of opportunity for business and prosperity and you know that.  The trouble is, when lower taxes provide the impetus and cranks up the economy, the bastards we elect go on a spending spree with all the new money the government gets.  It's the spending that's the problem and that crosses party lines. 

Without hijacking the thread in that direction (please) if the military expenditures were not there, the goobermint would be rolling in cash (in theory).  In reality they would have found some other way to piss it away.

Google The Contract With America.  If they would follow that, AND get serious about expoliting the resources we have in N. America What do you suppose would be the condition of our nation?
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Are Democrats Crazy?
« Reply #53 on: December 10, 2007, 09:41:53 AM »
Quote
The trouble is, when lower taxes provide the impetus and cranks up the economy, the bastards we elect go on a spending spree with all the new money the government gets.  It's the spending that's the problem and that crosses party lines. 

Which is exactly what I said. What difference does it make whether Democrats overspend on 'social programs' or Republicans overspend on war?  The result either way is that we, and our children, and our grandchildren on down the line are stuck with the bill.  And no amount of tax cuts are going to pay that bill; it will be borne by the middle class (as it always has been), who will be ripped off for the fruits of our labor. 

Bush's tax cuts did help the middle class, indirectly.  In reality, they were designed to accomodate the very wealthy, who derived more than three times as much benefit from them as did the middle class, who pay the largest amount of taxes.


Quote
Lower taxes are the engine of opportunity for business and prosperity and you know that.

That's been the sales pitch all along, but fewer are buying it today, because fewer are reaping that 'prosperity'.   Look around you; more and more people are working more and more hours just to stay even.  It takes two full time paychecks to raise, feed and house a family.  The middle class is evaporating as corporations and the wealthy shift more income to themselves and away from the working middle class. And puh-leeze don't start with the failed 'trickle down economics' mantra.  Reagan's tax cuts did create millions of jobs.  The problem is, they were all overseas in mostly third world countries.

Yes, we know who's crazy here, and it's neither Democrats nor Republicans. It's the fools who keep voting both of them into office.

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Are Democrats Crazy?
« Reply #54 on: December 10, 2007, 02:19:38 PM »
Riley's comment about Republicans overspending on war is wrong.  The FedGov is spending roughly $100billion a year on the combined wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  FedGov spends more on medicare/medicaid in six months than it has on the entire Iraq war to date.  Ditto for social security.  To compare the "Republican" wars with Democrat's socialism is misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst.

National defense is a legitimate and necessary purpose of FedGov.  In fact, it's the prime reason we have a FedGov at all.  To call it "overspending" when it is both appropriate and necessary is, again, either misleading or dishonest.

The notion that the Iraq war is bankrupting the nation is Democrat propaganda that way too many people are falling for.  They may be crazy, but people still listen...


grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,447
Re: Are Democrats Crazy?
« Reply #55 on: December 10, 2007, 02:44:05 PM »
Actually your comment about who pays most of the taxes is wrong, Riley.


The Tax Foundation
2001 L Street, N.W.
Suite 1050
Washington, D.C. 20036
202.464.6200

October 5, 2007
Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

by Gerald Prante

Fiscal Fact No. 104

The latest release of Internal Revenue Service data on individual income taxes comes from calendar year 2005, a year in which the economy remained healthy and continued to grow, as well as a year with higher-than-average price inflation.

This year's numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent and the tax share paid by the top 1 percent have reached all-time highs. In 2005, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 21.2 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of AGI and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.

(Note: For a detailed paper on the distribution of the entire U.S. fiscal system, including all federal and state and local taxes, read Who Pays Taxes and Who Receives Government Spending? An Analysis of Federal, State and Local Tax and Spending Distributions, 1991 - 2004.)

The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups (see Table 3). Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy has continued to rebound. For example, from 2000 to 2002, the adjusted gross income (AGI) of the top 1 percent of tax returns fell by over 26 percent. In that same period, the AGI of the bottom 50 percent of tax returns actually increased by 4.3 percent. However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by 61 percent for the top 1 percent and 10.7 percent for the bottom 50 percent.

In sum, between 2000 and 2005, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent group grew by 19.1 percent. On the other hand, in that same time period, pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 15.5 percent.

This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003-2005 compared to previous years.

The IRS data below include all of the 132.6 million tax returns filed in 2005 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earn enough to owe taxes. From other IRS data, we can see that 90.6 million of the tax returns came from people who paid taxes into the Treasury. That leaves 42 million tax returns filed by people with positive AGI who used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2005; but some even received more back from the IRS. This is a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which are not included in the aggregate percentile data here.

Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI, those taxpayers with an AGI of $145,283 or more in 2005 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners. To break into the top 1 percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $364,657 or more. These numbers are up significantly from 2003 when the equivalent thresholds were $130,080 and $295,495. Top incomes in 2005 are also continuing to surpass the peak they reached in 2000. At the height of the boom and bubble, $313,469 was the threshold to break into the top 1 percent, and then it fell to $285,424 in 2002 only to finally recover fully last year.

The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

Average tax rates increased once again as the economy continues to grow, even though there were no significant pieces of tax legislation enacted in 2005. Overall, the average tax rate for returns with a positive liability went from 11.9 percent to 12.1 percent from 2003 to 2004 and then up to 12.5 percent for 2005. (Note this does not include any refundable credits.)

The 2003 tax cut was the second in three years, but the tax code still remains highly progressive. The average tax rate in 2005 ranges from 2.98 percent of income for the bottom half of the earning spectrum to 23.13 percent for the top 1 percent.

I do agree with your last sentence.

Your comment about social programs vs war is a bit skewed though.  Wars end, but I don't think any social program has done anything but grow and grow and grow and grow.  We have several generations now that believe their "job" is to be supported by the government programs. Those folks help keep some very questionable people in office because they know those folks, like Teddy Kennedy are their meal ticket.  Most of those folks can't pull themselves out of that tragedy of human bondage because their families have been broken down by government fiat and they have no history in their families of any kind of work having any meaning.  Don't get me wrong, I don't blame them.  It's just that they don't know any different because government has oppressed them for so many generations.  They have been trained up to believe that living like they do is their lot and the socialists like Kennedy and his ilk constantly promotes it and is supported by the Jesse Jacksons et al.  Men like Bill Cosby are mocked by trying to give others a sense of worth and hope, and elevate a piece of skeet like Sharpton, who preys on and secures their misery while lining his pocket.

I just can't understand why men and women that can reason and have a kind heart can't see this tragedy that goes on and on and on......
 
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Are Democrats Crazy?
« Reply #56 on: December 11, 2007, 07:07:12 AM »
What raw data is presented in your cut and paste piece is generally correct, but it has been cherry picked to (purposefully) mislead the reader to an erroneous conclusion.  Some examples:

Quote
This year's numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent and the tax share paid by the top 1 percent have reached all-time highs. In 2005, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 21.2 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of AGI and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes

The comparison here is AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) to the percentage off ALL federal income taxes paid. AGI (line 37 on the 1040) is not the same as Total Income (line 22 on the 1040)  AGI is net of a number of downward adjustments to income typically available to wealthy people who have the disposable income to afford these write offs.  Why weren't Total Income numbers included in the piece?

Quote
However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by 61 percent for the top 1 percent and 10.7 percent for the bottom 50 percent.

AGI again. How much has Total Income risen for the top 50%?  Even if the author had presented the answer, it would be relatively meaningless, as half the working middle class are included in the top 50%.  Nonetheless, still an obvious obfuscation and attempt to mislead the reader. 

Quote
In sum, between 2000 and 2005, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent group grew by 19.1 percent. On the other hand, in that same time period, pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 15.5 percent.

Quote
he top 1 percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $364,657 or more. These numbers are up significantly from 2003 when the equivalent thresholds were $130,080 and $295,495. Top incomes in 2005 are also continuing to surpass the peak they reached in 2000. At the height of the boom and bubble, $313,469 was the threshold to break into the top 1 percent, and then it fell to $285,424 in 2002 only to finally recover fully last year.

19.1 percent of $364,657 is $69,650.  That's the minimum increase in AGI (again the increase in total income was much greater, but the author chooses not to reveal this data).   OTOH the bottom 50% had incomes of <$30, 000.  15.5 percent of $30,000 is $4650 at a maximum

Neither does the author disclose what percentage of either Total Income or AGI for that matter each group pays in income tax.

You then revert to the sermon on social programs while defending war expenditures.  Overspending has the same destructive result, no matter what the purpose.  I will tell you this, though.  Spending on 'social programs' will increase as more of the middle class drop into near poverty levels and the wealthy get wealthier. 

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Are Democrats Crazy?
« Reply #57 on: December 11, 2007, 07:12:40 AM »
Quote
FedGov spends more on medicare/medicaid in six months than it has on the entire Iraq war to date.  Ditto for social security.  To compare the "Republican" wars with Democrat's socialism is misleading at best, and an outright lie at worst......................The notion that the Iraq war is bankrupting the nation is Democrat propaganda that way too many people are falling for.

Not a real comparison. Your Iraq 'war' is financed with income taxes, borrowing against future income taxes, and theft from the Social Security funds.  OTOH, Social Security and Medicare payments are financed with payroll taxes.  Your 'war' has no income support, only expenses.

According to you, Iraq is not all that expensive.  And supposedly Bush's tax cuts (for the wealthy) have increased federal collections.  So what is the source of the record deficits and why is the national debt under Bush at an all time high?