McCain's Economist: We Need Tax Increases
By Steve Hynd Friday Sep 12, 2008 9:00pmDouglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and current chief McCain economic advisor tells Fortune columnist Matt Miller in a forthcoming book, The Tyranny of Dead Ideas, that the next President is simply going to have to raise taxes.
Joe Klein has an advance copy of the book and the details:
"If you do nothing on the spending side, you're going to have to raise taxes whether you're a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian," he tells Miller...and then he immediately makes it clear that the "spending side" part of the argument is nothing more than a political fig-leaf.
"It's arithmetic." Federal revenue today is 18.8 percent of GDP and federal spending is 20 percent. Holtz-Eakin observes that "the pressure are there" to lift spending [on entitlement programs, mostly] and taxes to 23 or 24 percent of GDP by around 2020, and to as much as 27 percent if health costs remain out of control.
Miller does the arithmetic: that's an annual tax hike of $550 to $700 billion, well beyond the range of any spending cuts that McCain has or might propose. (Those vaunted earmarks cost about $20 billion per year.)
So how come, with this guy on board, the McCain campaign is still pushing tax cuts and more tax cuts even if they are fiscal suicide?
"It's the brand," he said, "and you don't dilute the brand."
How's that for cynical? Of course, the book isn't out until after the elections.
Klein may well think Holz-Eakin is 'an honest man", but to me he looks like just another Republican hack willing to deceive about McCain's economic policies and their impact. He has been doing the rounds of the likes of Forbes magazine pushing McCain's tax-cut budget and while admitting that it's "not exactly revenue-neutral," saying that it's a pro-business plan. However, he also told the wonks at the Center for American Progress that McCain's plan would "make deficits expand up front, no question". Expert economists at the the Center for American Progress Action Fund seriously questioned McCain's deficit-funded corporate-welfare budget because in the short-run such tax cuts are the least cost-effective stimulus among 13 options, andin the medium or longer-run, the effect on growth of deficit-financed tax cuts “tends to be small”.
Obama, of course, says that his greater tax breaks for the less well off would be paid for by tax increases on those in upper tax brackets, especially those earning over $600,000 a year. Anderson Cooper recently explained the differences in tax proposals very simply on CNN:
Login or Register to post comments.
It seems to me that those who oppose taxes the most are the ones that can most afford to pay them.
I don't get it.
This story needs to go viral. Olbermann and Maddow both need to cover it.
Wow. Good for Mr. Cooper. I'm sending this to Rachel, Steph and Randi. Do the same! We need to push this stuff for Obama.
Under Obama's plan, I'll be able to save enough to buy my own home. Finally!
GM, You are absolutely right. Those people see paying extra taxes to reduce the burden on the rest of us as socialism, and that word scares the masses. The Washington Post had a similar story with a great graph showing the differences in the tax plans: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST20080609...
Guitar Man @ 1:
It is very simple, you get to be a fat cat by getting more than your share. The less taxes you pay the fatter you get.
Does this have to do with just wage earners? If so, why not tax earnings from stocks more along with the extra taxes on wages.
When your deficit is in the trillions, and you are debt spending annually, there is no way possible to have any kind of tax decrease. Any politician that says they will is lying.
Paul in Boca @ 4:
I will tell you what the word socialism should convey in this country, it is socialism for fat cats.
As always the conservatives try to usurp the English language in furthering their own interests.
Are we going back to 'Potterville' in the '"It's a Wonderful Life" movie? It seems like that to me.
I'm a college student who makes, like, nothing, so I'll be glad to accept Obama's tax cut.
Heads up for Saturday Night Live premiere tonight at 11:30 p.m. EST.
There's a very good chance Tina Fey will be on as Sarah Barracuda.
7 ConcernedCanuck Says: When your deficit is in the trillions, and you are debt spending annually, there is no way possible to have any kind of tax decrease. Any politician that says they will is lying.
========
Not So!!
Just because they've already dug us an amazingly deep financial hole DOES NOT MEAN they can't dig it any deeper!!
And - given their insatiable greed for more more more - I fully imagine that if elected they would do exactly that.
"Deficits Don't Matter" - except to WE the PEOPLE who have to pay for them.
4 Paul in Boca Says: GM, You are absolutely right. Those people see paying extra taxes to reduce the burden on the rest of us as socialism, and that word scares the masses.
========
I say that it is the responsibility of government to regulate the corporations for the benefit of the people.
And if the corporation won't behave, revoke its charter to do business.
Some may call this "socialism" ..
I call it democracy - government of the people, by the people, for the people.
12 MountainMan23
Just because a new leader is elected that decreases spending, doesn't eliminate the massive debt already incurred. You still have to pay it. You can't pay it with tax cuts. All that does is decrease government revenues, meaning they will have to borrow. Military alone consumes how much US budgets? Money has to come from somewhere. Any politician promising tax cuts is a liar.
Bailouts=corporate welfare=socialism for the fat cats.
Never before in the history of our country has the wealth been so unevenly distributed in such a short time. The rich, under Republican rule, have been getting richer at an alarming rate, worse, even than the days of the Robber Barons.
Actually, the sad thing is that people who shout about it the most are usually the ones who pay the least and wouldn't see their taxes go up at all, or would even have them go down. But they've been reflexively conditioned that TAXES ARE BAD!!! so they oppose anyone who would raise them, regardless of the logic behind it or who would actually be the target. That's what's so screwed up about the American voting public.
The way I understand Obama's economic plan is that it's basically a reverse on "trickle down" economics? Where you give people on the bottom the best tax breaks so they have more disposable income to spend? Is that basically it? If so, it might actually work.
I'm not an economic, but isn't America completly bankrupt?
Hey! Those fat cats "earn" every penny, because they work hard!
Those salaries are 30 times larger than mine because they work 30 times harder!
Pfffffffffffttttttttttttttttttt.......
Guitar Man @ 1:
Absolutely. To a true 'conservative' everything revolves around taxes. They absolutely hate the idea that something is being taken away from them and given to someone else; and they worship the idea that wealth 'trickles down'.
I've never really understood why taxes are such a big issue. Everyone has to pay them (or should). And we certainly need the services that only government can provide; military, infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), and some social programs. Plus, everyone should realize that you can't balance the budget (or at least reduce the deficit) by only cutting expenditures.
The Republican ideal is to practically eliminate government, thereby eliminating the need for taxes; the concept of 'every man for himself', which brings us to the debacle of the last eight years.
14 ConcernedCanuck Says: 12 MountainMan23
Just because a new leader is elected that decreases spending, doesn’t eliminate the massive debt already incurred. You still have to pay it. You can’t pay it with tax cuts. All that does is decrease government revenues, meaning they will have to borrow. Military alone consumes how much US budgets? Money has to come from somewhere. Any politician promising tax cuts is a liar.
========
Evidently you've never grasped the concept of "deficit spending" .. it means spending money you don't have, .. like a credit card.
For instance GW has financed the entire Iraq War on deficit spending.
As long as the US can find a buyer for Treasury Notes (sticking future generations with even greater debt) the tax cut fanatics will continue to pillage the treasury.
Midnight Rambler @ 16:
What precise tax bracket are you referring to?
Texas Democrat @ 17:
It wouldn't hurt and it just might work if it's not too late.
I'm not clear on why anyone other than a U.S. tax payer would post on this section. Am I missing something?
The total debt of the USA, government and private, is $40 trillion dollars.
The GDP of the entire planet is $54 trillion. The GDP of the USA is $13 trillion.
300,000 people owe an awful lot of money!!!!
What's really unbelievable is the middle and working class people who've been conditioned to believe that they're better off tax-wise by voting Republican. Often they don't even understand how much they really pay in taxes. I'm an accountant, and I do payroll, and believe me....many of them have no idea what they actually pay in taxes.
But many of them have swallowed the meme that "tax and spend" liberals will make them worse off. And the reality is that, that's NEVER been true.
Paul in Boca @ 4:
Then we need to take the word "socialism" back from the 'cons. Whenever it comes up in conversation ( I serve alcohol to retired mill workers in Oregon, so it comes up more than you'd think for me ) I always admit that a little socialism is a good thing...or don't you like Fire protection, police protection, Social Security/MediCare/MedcAid and think we should go back to having to pay for all that out of pocket? Do some math for them and show that it would be cheaper to pay a slight tax bump than keep paying for Health Insurance. Showed one old dude he'd have saved over a hundred of dollars american yearly with even a 10% tax hike.
Remind them we have some socialism currently in the mix, then add in that socialized healthcare would get rid of all those sickly bums that pass around the flu virus and colds all winter long. And that corporate bailouts are the form of socialism that they are really worried/complaining about.
It's a slow process, but I'm changing minds. Please help.
JHR @ 20:
Grover Norquist said, "Drown it in a bathtub." (Meaning government besides defense.)
*Oops 300,000,000 people
24 McPale’s Navy Says: I’m not clear on why anyone other than a U.S. tax payer would post on this section. Am I missing something?
Yes, you are. The economy of the USA is crucial in the world economy. You are in a sea of red ink. If you can't pay up on the money you owe, the world economy crashes. Is that enough reason for you??
21 MountainMan23
You don't grasp what I am saying. Even if you eliminate deficit spending, you still have a deficit. Period. It hasn't gone away. Just like it never went away under Clinton. Just because you don't use your maxed out credit card, doesn't mean it isn't maxed out and you still have to pay.
19 Korry Says: Hey! Those fat cats “earn” every penny, because they work hard!
Those salaries are 30 times larger than mine because they work 30 times harder!
Pfffffffffffttttttttttttttttttt…….
=========
Only 30 times?
The president of Lehman Brothers may see his $600 million salary slashed to ONLY $49 million due to the failure of Lehman Brothers.
If you're making one-thirtieth of EITHER of those numbers you're not hurting now are you?
That $600 million figure is 10 thousand times $60,000. The median family income in the US is something like $53,000.
So Pres of Lehman was expecting to "earn" MORE THAN TEN THOUSAND times the average family income this year.
In fact, if you reduced his salary by 10,000 times $53,000, he'd still have $70 million left.
THAT is how grossly inequitable the gap between rich and AVERAGE has become.
"If you’re making one-thirtieth of EITHER of those numbers you’re not hurting now are you?"
I work for a small company. The CEO doesn't make anywhere near $600 mil. In fact, currently, he'd still get a tax cut under Obama's plan.
I know in many cases it's much more extreme than 30 times. I just grabbed a number. :)
31 ConcernedCanuck Says: 21 MountainMan23
You don’t grasp what I am saying. Even if you eliminate deficit spending, you still have a deficit. Period. It hasn’t gone away. Just like it never went away under Clinton. Just because you don’t use your maxed out credit card, doesn’t mean it isn’t maxed out and you still have to pay.
=====
I fully understand that.
My point - that YOU don't seem to grasp - is that the "give more tax cuts" crowd does not care about reducing the deficit.
You seem to take it for granted that they do.
They simply want to run up more debt for the Treasury and siphon it off into the corporations and the pockets of the wealthy, as they have been doing.
It's a con game, a scam, a ripoff.
alan greenspan says we can't afford the 3.3. trillion dollars of mccain tax cuts...again mcLiar trying to present
a rosey picture instead of reality. now were providing
bailouts which i always thought republicans were against.
i guess you say one thing do another.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aKZG._gG2NVI&refer=p...
Edwin @ 30
Yup. Reason enough. Thank you. So what exactly are the implications of a failed U.S. economy to Canada? I've been looking, but haven't found a verifiable source. Just trying to get more educated here.
According to Dick Cheney, most Americans don't care about the national debt.
33 Korry Says: “If you’re making one-thirtieth of EITHER of those numbers you’re not hurting now are you?”
I work for a small company. The CEO doesn’t make anywhere near $600 mil. In fact, currently, he’d still get a tax cut under Obama’s plan.
I know in many cases it’s much more extreme than 30 times. I just grabbed a number. :)
========
Most small corporations are in much the same boat as the average wage earner.
Many are sole owned or family owned.
The Republicans however like to blur the distinction between small businesses and big corporations, often pretending that the small businesses will suffer from a plan (like Obama's) when in fact most would benefit, and the only real "suffering" would be the higher taxes the big corporations would pay, and I certainly don't see that as "suffering."
Alice @ 8: "the conservatives try to usurp the English language in furthering their own interests". My point exactly. They have twisted socialism to equal communism, and that's what scares the masses. Mountain Man @ 13: Absolutely right. But what do we don when there are corporations like Haliburton moving the the UAE simply to escape paying taxes? Since the Republicans are the party of big business, they are never going to force corporations to pay their fair share. It could even be the opposite: I think that bailing out Bear Stearns, now Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and soon to be Lehman Brothers amounts to corporate socialism, in the the profits are privatized, but the losses are stuck to you and me.
Jimmy @ 27, I'm doing my best!
Off topic, sorry: Did Cheney ever get forced to reveal who he appointed to that secret energy task force back a few years ago? Were there any Alaskans on it?
34 MountainMan23
I grasp your point. You don't grasp mine. Obama is promising "trickle up" economics. That won't work either. Businesses will close up even faster than they are now. Without businesses, no work. Without work, no incomes. It's a no win situation really. BUT. Any political leader offering tax cut bribes, is nothing more than a liar that will change their tune once elected. Seen it. Over and over and over.
Government influence over economies is very very limited. We tend to blame them when the economy is bad and thank them when it's good. Which is all wrong. Rich people run the economy whether we like it or not. Any political leader would be literally committing suicide if he/she thought that the rich would allow them to take away their money and give it to the poor. Just. Won't. Happen.
GM - "It seems to me that those who oppose taxes the most are the ones that can most afford to pay them."
You don't get it because you don't have it. I guarantee you that if you had it you'd be mighty pissed that a government had the audacity to take more of what isn't theirs.
This nonsense about "Taxing the rich because they have so much money" is as narrow-minded as saying "kill all the muslims b/c they look funny, or whatever." In most cases people earn their money and rightfully should keep the same percentage that we in the lower brackets eat. Personally, I hope to be in that upper bracket someday. I'll do as much as I can to help my neighbor. But I'll also legally do what I can to keep what's rightfully mine. "Tax the Rich" is why Democratic candidates lose so many moderates.
3 solutions to a stronger party:
a. Cut spending (reduce entitlements, slash defense excess)
b. Flat tax rate for everyone (that way we're all more actively concerned as to how our money is spent).
c. Temporarily increase taxes for all double Bush voters until war debts paid (ok maybe not for stronger party, but I really want that one too).
p.s. Most rich folks vote republicans because they really are getting royally screwed. See the tax brackets (http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm)
McPale's Navy @ 36:
We live in a global economy that is so intertwined that if one country fails, they all fail to some degree.
Just read about the global economy during the crash of 1929. We took a lot of folks from other countries down with us.
GREED
The tax schedule should be progressive. Those that are below the poverty line have EIC, earned income credit. In effect a negative tax rate.
Those that make the most should pay incrementally more. Obama's plan does that. McCain's plain is welfare for the rich.
How much military do we need? We spend more than the rest of the world combined.
We need MORE social programs. Universal Health, single payer. NOT welfare for health insurance companies.
We need improved education, that is a social program.
Tax increases for the wealthy plus expenditure reduction.
What you describe is the Libertarian ideal.
The Republicans want PRIVATIZED Government. That is what has happened under Bush. It is a very far cry from eliminating the NEED for taxes.
Our spending has gone WAY UP. WASTER FRAUD and ABUSE are rampant.
Price GOUGING is RAMPANT.
The Government entity that oversees the private contracts that are let, IS A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR.
The fox is guarding the hen house. We have been FLEECED.
And they have been borrowing the money.
This is the first 'war' in which taxes have not gone up.
The deficit for this fiscal year alone is over four hundred BILLION.
A large part of that is the latest Social Welfare Program for Fat Cats.
Borrow and Spend. Borrow and Spend. Borrow and Spend.
34 MountainMan23 Says: 31 ConcernedCanuck Says: 21 MountainMan23
You don’t grasp what I am saying. Even if you eliminate deficit spending, you still have a deficit. Period. It hasn’t gone away. Just like it never went away under Clinton. Just because you don’t use your maxed out credit card, doesn’t mean it isn’t maxed out and you still have to pay.
=====
I fully understand that.
My point - that YOU don’t seem to grasp - is that the “give more tax cuts” crowd does not care about reducing the deficit.
You seem to take it for granted that they do.
They simply want to run up more debt for the Treasury and siphon it off into the corporations and the pockets of the wealthy, as they have been doing.
It’s a con game, a scam, a ripoff.
========================================
What neither of you has mentioned is the cheapening of Treasury Bonds. There's a limit to how much debt "the market" will buy. Sooner or later they'll become a risky buy (for the Chinese and other Asians, buying them now). It's like giving out way way way too many I.O.U.s. They could also be used as a political tool. While the USA disparages China, it's their workers' savings financing your lavish lifestyles. They might say, "Enough!" What if people don't want to buy them any longer?
41 ConcernedCanuck Says: 34 MountainMan23
I grasp your point. You don’t grasp mine. Obama is promising “trickle up” economics. That won’t work either. Businesses will close up even faster than they are now. Without businesses, no work. Without work, no incomes. It’s a no win situation really. BUT. Any political leader offering tax cut bribes, is nothing more than a liar that will change their tune once elected. Seen it. Over and over and over.
Government influence over economies is very very limited. We tend to blame them when the economy is bad and thank them when it’s good. Which is all wrong. Rich people run the economy whether we like it or not. Any political leader would be literally committing suicide if he/she thought that the rich would allow them to take away their money and give it to the poor. Just. Won’t. Happen.
========
Apparently you missed the part of Obama's plan that raises the taxes on the upper income brackets.
Collectively that would raise taxes.
It's only a tax-cut plan for 80% of us.
43 Jo Says: McPale’s Navy @ 36:
Edwin @ 30
We live in a global economy that is so intertwined that if one country fails, they all fail to some degree.
Just read about the global economy during the crash of 1929. We took a lot of folks from other countries down with us.
So it's ALL on the heels of the United States? Small minded thinking there.
When discussing McCain's tax policy, his intent to include as income the medical insurance premiums paid for by employers needs to be highlighted. That will amount to an increased income tax on all Americans who are lucky enough to have medical care benefits.
switchgrass @ 42:
Here they go again. The flat tax fanatics. Morally wrong and repugnant.
We have a
progressivetax system in the U.S. because it is more fair to more people. And a flat tax would only work for the advantage of the rich. If you are really serious about fixing the deficit.you won't see too many republicans/NEOCONs on this thread. the have nothing to say or be proud of as far as
economic policy....out of control spending,taxes cuts,
loopholes,breaks for the wealthy.
fiscally responsible......my ass....and they still use that
battle cry for the uninformed.look at palin she raised taxes on oil co. profits......a republican (oxymoron),but when obama talks taxes he's a terrible human being.
warren buffet said his secretary pays a larger % of taxes on her income.....than he does.
the middle class pays plenty of taxes much of it is the inflated cost of services. consider healthcare cost
when you are a member of a paying pool that provides
services to a person(s) not able to payorbe a member in the pool....that cost is put on the members. that extra cost in some regions of this country can be $600-800. Not all but some of these people come from other countries to provide cheap labor. they can't afford healthcare but use the system. corporations love it..they have there cheap labor...don't provide healthcare and put the burden on government/public
services. this has to stop....mccain is NOT going to change this corporate model that resembles china.
36 McPale’s Navy Says: Edwin @ 30
Yup. Reason enough. Thank you. So what exactly are the implications of a failed U.S. economy to Canada? I’ve been looking, but haven’t found a verifiable source. Just trying to get more educated here.
============================================
The border between the USA and Canada is the busiest in the world, in dollar value. More than $1.1 billion dollars of goods and services cross, every single day. The flow is both ways, mutual. You buy a lot of our oil and electricity, food and timber, and other resources. Not to mention retail, toursim, banking, insurance, autos, and telecommunications. Any failed economy, especially a giant one like yours, brings the whole house of cards down, for good. Everyone should be "scared".
McPale's Navy @ 47:
Don't be silly. Have you ever read history? It was a mix of things involving many things. The devaluing of the dollar was one.
45 Edwin Hussein Says:
What neither of you has mentioned is the cheapening of Treasury Bonds. There’s a limit to how much debt “the market” will buy. Sooner or later they’ll become a risky buy (for the Chinese and other Asians, buying them now). It’s like giving out way way way too many I.O.U.s. They could also be used as a political tool. While the USA disparages China, it’s their workers’ savings financing your lavish lifestyles. They might say, “Enough!” What if people don’t want to buy them any longer?
========
NY Times had an article a coupla weeks ago that the Bank of China was short of cash and wondering what to sell, and then went into the fact that they are losing money already on their current holdings of US Treasury bonds due to the fall of the dollar and strength of the yuan.
The scenario you describe is already upon us, already being discussed in Chinese financial circles.
So the "cut-taxes-and-dam-the-deficit" plan has already run headon into a wall.
Four more years of trying to play the same scam would just about certainly bring about a collapse of the American economy, if it isn't already past the tipping point.
47 McPale’s Navy Says: 43 Jo Says: McPale’s Navy @ 36:
Edwin @ 30
We live in a global economy that is so intertwined that if one country fails, they all fail to some degree.
Just read about the global economy during the crash of 1929. We took a lot of folks from other countries down with us.
So it’s ALL on the heels of the United States? Small minded thinking there.
===========================
It's not small minded thinking. How about some facts instead of your gut feeling/"patriotism". The USA is by far the world's largest economy. It is interlaced with the global economy.
The word you want in the second instance is DEBT.
When your fiscal outlay is greater than your income, you have a deficit. When you run a deficit, you accumulate DEBT.
We have been running huge deficits since BUSH, the supposed fiscal conservative, took office. We have accumulated a mountain of debt. Over 9 trillion.
That debt goes back to WWII which we haven't paid off yet.
That, unfortunately, is not the whole picture.
Our public credit card is nearly maxxed, our private credit cards are maxxed.
And the most chilling is we have unfunded liabilities of over 53 trillion in Social Security etc.
We have not been taking of business and the crap is going to hit the fan. It is already hitting the fan.
53 MountainMan23 Says
Isn't so much debt, held in foreign hands, a security risk, in itself? Think about it.
Jo- "Here they go again. The flat tax fanatics. Morally wrong and repugnant."
So I am they. Basic economics teaches the more you spend the more you owe. You can't keep starting new programs because they feel good and seem morally right. Just like I can't buy more and more things for my kid b/c it'll bust our monthly budget. I love my kids, but debt is no longer an option...it's not morally right to put us at risk. Nor am I going to demand their grandparents give us more money...that wouldn't be morally right either.
The problem lies with people thinking that those that have more are not generous. Certainly there are those fat cats that suck their stockholders dry. But who's at the other end of that spectrum? I dare not say it for ignorantly being called repugnant. There's good, hard working people at all ends that deserve more of what they earn. Maybe it's just that once you start entering higher tax brackets based on your own merits, wasteful spending hurts my pocket more and more.
FanaticSwitch out...Tina Fey is on!
If anyone has questions about the national DEBT, go to this site:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The US National Debt clock (watch it tick up) and a list of hundreds of links to answer any and all questions. It's nearing $10 trillion.
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 14 Sep 2008 at 03:33:44 AM GMT is:
--------------(see site for this figure)-----------
The estimated population of the United States is 304,723,593
so each citizen's share of this debt is $31,787.59.
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.93 billion per day since September 28, 2007!
Concerned? Then tell Congress and the White House!
Edwin Hussein @ 56:
Sure but the Neo Cons don't really care about security, at all. They just want the money.
War is a racket. We have been fleeced. They will borrow and spend every last dime, which goes to their buddies, that they can.
The last eight years have been a war profiteers paradise.
switchgrass @ 42:
if you don't believe the 'super wealthy' don't hide and cheat on the management of their money your wrong.
google the ubs illegal tax shelter hearings hiding billions
of tax dollars. democrats may lose because of perceived
increases in taxes but that's due to clever marketing by
republicans. alan greenspan said we can't afford the mccain tax cuts. some people are just greedy it's a mindset. now the bailouts at the public's expense. the wealthy can afford the top 8-10 accounting firms...strategy find loopholes.
"In most cases people earn their money and rightfully should keep the same percentage that we in the lower brackets eat. Personally, I hope to be in that upper bracket someday."
Bologna! No CEO who's making hundreds of millions of dollars is "earning" that kind of salary. That's just ridiculous. It's privilege pay. Period. And a disproportionate percentage of them are white men.
The disparity between the lowest paid worker and the highest paid executive in a corporation has widened exponentially in the last 30 years. And it's not because the people at the bottom of the ladder are slacking off, and the ones at the top are working harder.
It started with Reaganomics, and it's just plain greed.
56 Edwin Hussein Says: 53 MountainMan23 Says
Isn’t so much debt, held in foreign hands, a security risk, in itself? Think about it.
=====
You're preaching to the choir !!
It's insane!
short video about the whistleblower who identified the illegal tax shelters two european banks over 100billion taxes
on 1.3 trillion dollars....one of the banks...ubs warburg...phil gram is on the board of ubs
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&It...
dwin Hussein Says:
It’s not small minded thinking. How about some facts instead of your gut feeling/”patriotism”. The USA is by far the world’s largest economy. It is interlaced with the global economy.
I asked first. Go on. Give me some facts that the world relies on America's (failed) economy.
Who are we most in debt to? Japan and China.
Where do we get our excess oil from? Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Mexico.
Who answers your 800 credit card phone number? India
How on earth do you think the U.S. is leading the world at this rate? Nukes? Like I said, small-minded.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST20080609...
easy to read graph of obama& mcLiar tax proposal
"The problem lies with people thinking that those that have more are not generous."
No, that's not the problem. For someone who has to spend every penny of their after tax income in order to survive, the idea that someone who makes, oh say 100 times more than what they need to survive, the idea that they pay the same percentage in taxes, just does not feel fair. Or moral. Because it isn't.
Guitar Man @ 1:
Whoever dies with the most money wins.
Just because the book doesn't come out until after the election does not mean you can't DOG Holtz-Eakin if the quote is correct! GET TO IT! Better yet, ask McCain about it. (Unless of course, McCain plans to retreat behind the Republican party's new IRON CURTAIN, and hide in the press-free bunker with Palin.
If McCain/Palin are afraid of the Campbell Brown and the Washington press corps, what will they make of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbolla?
“The problem lies with people thinking that those that have more are not generous.”
By the way, in terms of charitable giving, the middle and working classes are far more generous, on a proportionate basis, than the upper class has ever been.
Constituent@65, see the link @ 4
ConcernedCanuck @ 31:
Sorry your wrong on the fundamentals. It is perfectly possible to run a spending deficit every year and still be in good financial standing. If the rate of economic growth is such that anticipated tax revenues at the time debt is due is sufficient to cover it you are good to go. The real significant ratio is debt to GDP. If that gets out of line it indicates you won't be able to cover the debt without drastic action, such as cutting social spending. This is why the IMF is so unpopular because that's generally what they insist on as a prerequisite to making loans. In fact there are many other countries with worse ratios than the U.S. The trend is upward however and that is disturbing.
64 McPale’s Navy Says: dwin Hussein Says:
It’s not small minded thinking. How about some facts instead of your gut feeling/”patriotism”. The USA is by far the world’s largest economy. It is interlaced with the global economy.
I asked first. Go on. Give me some facts that the world relies on America’s (failed) economy.
Who are we most in debt to? Japan and China.
Where do we get our excess oil from? Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Mexico.
Who answers your 800 credit card phone number? India
How on earth do you think the U.S. is leading the world at this rate? Nukes? Like I said, small-minded.
==========================
I'm sorry, I can't help it if you are dense. Try reading some newspapers (the kind without tits). Or, see some of my above posts, like #25 and see if you can do the math, all by yourself.
That last one was addressed to Concerned c by the way. Thanks MountainMman for clarifying the gas tax thing on the other thread.
72 Edwin Hussein Says:
I’m sorry, I can’t help it if you are dense. Try reading some newspapers (the kind without tits). Or, see some of my above posts, like #25 and see if you can do the math, all by yourself.
I don't have a thing for tits. So you failed on that one. #25? What am I supposed to debate on that? I think we all should pay more taxes to get us out of this deep shit hole that Bush helped to maintain and increased single-handedly. I'm not opposed to making this country better in the least so I'm happy to pay more taxes to help us out. What are you doing?
You still haven't answered my question though as to how the world relies on the United States for world financial stability. I'm waiting, 'cuz if you're right, I'd really like to know the facts so I can challenge the thousands of reports I read that say otherwise.
Peter G @ 71:
I would argue that the debt to GDP ratio is not the most important number, although it's obviously a lot more important than the national debt per se. (Also, the fact that the debt to GDP ratio is more important than the national debt per se is the argument the supply side, tricke-down economics a$$holes have been using to justify tax cuts for the rich while running the government with borrowed money. They claim the tax cuts for the rich are an "investment" which will increase economic growth, and offset the debt in the long run. Which is why I usually puke a little bit in my mouth every time I hear somebody bring the debt/GDP ratio up.)
I'd argue that interest rates are more important than the debt/GDP ratio. Any fool can balance a budget when interest rates are 5% (like Bill Clinton and Jean Chretien, for example), but NOBODY can balance a budget when they're paying 18% on debt (like Jimmy Carter had to, for example). Well, the reason interest rates were at 18% in the late 70s was because all the baby boomers were borrowing to buy their first house. Interest rates were down to 2% in the early 2000s because the same boomers had paid off their houses, and were now saving money for retirement. THAT is when we SHOULD have been running up massive budget surpluses and paying down the national debt. Before the boomers start to retire and draw their money back out again in 2010. All of this crap about cutting earmarks is going to seem so insignificant in 2020, when interest rates are back up to 12%, and we're talking about eliminating social security altogether, to avoid bankrupting the country.
Clinton brought in two budget surpluses which he SHOULD have used to pay down some of the national debt, and probably would have if his blood hadn't been spending so much time in the wrong head. Then Gore and Bush fought an election over whether to use it to fix social security, or give the surplus back as a tax cut. An amazing number of voters chose the irresponsible and stupid option of "gimme my 200 bucks NOW baby, so I can buy a new set of chrome hub caps for my ride! Fuck my grand kids who'll have to pay off the $2000 thirty years from now that I COULD have offset."
Say it ain't so Joe. . . .
Guitar Man @ 1:
You don't get rich by giving money away.
Paul in Boca @ 70:
sorry about that. i'm getting alittle anxious about the perceived tax proposals.....a lot of misinformation/lying.
grover norquist....b.s.
Corporate welfare has been in place now for about 8 years now and we've seen the results. Cutting taxes at the top even more will not create jobs and will not benefit anyone but those at the very top. We need to go back to the same tax structure that we had under Clinton and also put referees back in the game. We need to close the loopholes that allow the rich and the corporations to avoid paying taxes at all and instead of giving them a tax cut, give them financial incentives to keep livable wage jobs here, stiff penalties need to be implemented for any corporate CEO that has any connection to illegal labor of any kind, and address the health care nightmare. I guess you could say that it would be a tax cut with strings attached. We need more tax revenue because the more we borrow, the more the value of the dollar drops and that causes huge problems with the economy. It's not just the taxes that need addressing, it's the overall philosophy.
McPale's Navy @ 24:
It's simple. The US economy has the potential to take down the economies of every other country in the world, if it fails and particularly that of Canada where 80% of exports go to the US and the Us is Canada's largest trading partner. It's the reason why my blog focuses on US rather than Canadian politics because whoever rules your country will have tremendous impact on mine. Get it now?
If a zombie blinks, is it still Republican?
McPale's Navy @ 74:
A leading economist in China told their government that if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac go down, the world's economy goes to pieces because the US government would be placed in a position, through the devastation that would cause to what remains of the US economy, of having to default on its debts. The Chinese government which holds the largest share of US debt told Bush et. al. to bail out Fannie and Freddie. There's your answer. It has little to do with where the jobs but it has everything to do with who holds the debt and what defaulting on that debt (through the wholesale reduction in the worth of the bonds through the devaluation of the dollar) would do to the countries that hold that debt.
Be grateful that the Chinese in power right now are not the military fanatics of previous generations, but instead ones who see another path through economics to world domination, as China holds the ability right now to destroy the US economy overnight should it choose to do so (while at the same time destroying their own venture into "capitalism") simply by dumping the vast amounts of $US that it holds in reserves gained from the trade imbalance. This is one of the very real threats in the world to you today, unlike the mythical terrorists that Bush keeps talking about. China has a multi-millennial history of isolationism and should it choose to withdraw from the world economy and under a strict military rule go back to that historical position your goose it well and truly cooked.
The major reason for the war in Afghanistan is not terrorism - it is a geopolitical battle for the hydrocarbon reserves in the "stans". An attempt to ensure that the pipelines that get built bring the oil and gas out to the west and not to China. If China gets that fuel the military there could very well say lets take the hit on our economy, we've been isolated and survived before, let's deal an economic death blow to the Us and then our military will be supreme in the world. It would be very tempting for them to do so, despite the hardship it would cost them, because in the end they would have the largest and best equipped military in the workd as the Us would no longer be able to afford its.
Lie to win, if that doesn't work, cheat to win, if that doesn't work, steal the election. For the GOP they take no chances and work the trifecta.
McPale's Navy @ 64:
You're defeating yourself with your own argument. What do you think happens to all those other countries if America goes down, they just start trading with each other instead? This is domino theory and America is one big fat domino. It's not about patriotism, it's arithmatic.
Holtz-Eakin was on All Things Considered tonight. He completely sidestepped the question about how the McCain version of the Republican economic policy yield any different results than those of the Bush version of the Republican economic policy (disaster...). Check out this answer: a model political deflection, filled with rambling off-topic talking points.
Jacki Lyden: "Mr. Holtz-Eakin, the Republican message on jobs creation has long been 'less taxes, smaller government'. The Democrats say that this Republican strategy has led to a jobs disaster. How can you say that it's working?"
Douglas Holtz-Eakin: "The issue in this election is about the future, and the future is one where Senator Obama is not interested in domestic exploration of new energy supplies, and one in which he's quite frankly played politics with trade, and put us in a position where we may not have the allies we need on the economic front. Senator McCain is going to look at every policy through the lens of jobs in America. Yes, that includes tax policy, but so much more is important. He's going to try to take care of all the dimensions of someones' economic life, and provide a more prosperous future for America."
no ome wants to say it but we need to willing to pay more and recieve less. This generation needs to institute it. The greatest generation recognized this. I'm one of the ones that has to pay for this. I'm willing to do it though. I am Obama to cut my entitlemenents so my grandkids (god willing I have children) don't have to worry. Why grandma loved FDR to the death. I want to feel the same way about my next president. Please America, please, Obama '08. Obama Alaska '08!
During a time of war, Bush year after year lowered the taxes of the super-wealthy who elected him (the first time in world history taxes were lowered during a war). Bush said more money in the hands of these people would encourage investment and stimulate the economy. What happened? These people just sat on their money or perhaps spent it overseas (in Italy buying gold plated toilet seats, or sending our jobs overseas, perhaps?). The trickle down didn't happen, and here we are in a crappy, jobless economy and stuck in an extremely expensive war. These are the same rich assholes who are gouging us at the pump, and cutting back on our wages and benefits (while filling their own pockets). Obama's plan to rescind Bush's tax cuts on the richest to the tax levels they were at during the Clinton era is probably letting these rich, Republican jerkoffs off easy. These are the guys who bought the war by electing Bush, so they should have to pay for it.
Changing tax laws to make the rich pay their fair share is not socialism. It's equality.
Reducing taxes for the wealthy by making the poor pay more is socialism.
A large part of a Conservative Tax Plan requires that ole Ronnie Reagan fantasy of trickle down economics where all that tax savings for the wealthy becomes economic stimulation as those people create jobs or buy things that are made by people who have jobs. Yeah, right! How much crap do we import from China? Unemployment at 6.1% and growing? Hasn't that concept been just about totally de-bunked at this point?
John McCain has never met a LIE he couldn't tell. He doesn't mind LYING to his constituents, because he has no respect for his constituents. He thinks they are all idiots. He uses the term "my friends" as his father did, to talk down to people he has no respect for at all.
JOHN MCCAIN LIES
BECAUSE HE THINKS
YOU'RE DUMB
“It’s the brand,” he said, “and you don’t dilute the brand.”
My Friends, there will be more wars
Why doesn't the average person understand that FEDERAL taxes are among the least of their expenses? Morons! Do you own 1040EZ! Even if they paid 0 taxes, they would still be at the bottom with costs rising and wages stagnating.
If raising taxes is such a messed up thing what is 10 trillion in debt? Or the country we have invaded having a surplus of 97 billion?
it's called a printing press
It is not just that taxes need to be raised, spending needs to be cut.
John McCain has never met a LIE he couldn’t tell. He doesn’t mind LYING to his constituents, because he has no respect for his constituents. He thinks they are all idiots. He uses the term “my friends” as his father did, to talk down to people he has no respect for at all.
JOHN MCCAIN LIES
BECAUSE HE THINKS
YOU’RE DUMB
--------------
all polititians lie because they think we are dumb. He/she who lies best, wins.
A large part of a Conservative Tax Plan requires that ole Ronnie Reagan fantasy of trickle down economics where all that tax savings for the wealthy becomes economic stimulation as those people create jobs or buy things that are made by people who have jobs. Yeah, right! How much crap do we import from China? Unemployment at 6.1% and growing? Hasn’t that concept been just about totally de-bunked at this point?
---------------
All economics is a failure, eventually. Expansion and contraction equal a cycle. Inflation and deflation equal a cycle. Cycles will never allow any economics to be successful.
There is no such thing as a perpetually expanding economy. The macro is always phasing. A standard of living does not only go up. The 1920's boom resulted in the 1930's bust. The 1990's boom is also resulting in a bust. In the 1920's the housing bubble came before the stock bubble. It was reversed this time.
In 1929, the stock and credit bubble burst. In 2005, the housing bubble burst and credit bubble burst afterward.
How much crap do we import from China? How long was China a destitute country?
A vaccuum had to be filled. China became producer to the world, not just the U.S.
With easy credit, we simply became China's biggest consumer.
Citi ran an ad campaign- "live richly". "You have $25,000 hidden in your house and we will help you find it." American consumers gave no thought about living beyond their means. The government has not been the only one running deficits.
Consumers are now tapped out, so the government has taken to bailing out mortgage holders, the GSE's and banks. So who is going to bail out the government?
With the 10 year cycle nearing the peak, the day of reckoning is fast approaching.
Changing tax laws to make the rich pay their fair share is not socialism. It’s equality.
Reducing taxes for the wealthy by making the poor pay more is socialism.
-------------
Fair share would be everyone paying the same percentage in taxes.
akryan @ 86:
You already are paying more and receiving less. It is called inflation. You don't really have a choice either... Congress has figured out that it doesn't need to ask you for squat, they can steal your purchasing power via inflation and you have no recourse but to try vote them out next time. Unfortunately, your fellow voters are dumb and are easily distracted by whatever pointless issue the media puts in front of them, making it very difficult to vote out the bad apples.
Seriously, even though the economy has suposedly been an important issue this election year, how many times have they (McCain and Obama) talked about inflation and how to stop it? How about Zero? They can't talk about it because if they did, people might realize that these two bozos are coming from the very branch of government that is responsible for our inflation and they (McCain and Obama) have failed to do anything about it. Stimulus checks and bailing out banks don't fight inflation, they make inflation worse!
If you really think more money to a corrupt gangster government is the right thing to do. Please write a check for 80 per cent of your income to the irs. I am sure they will say thanks.
MountainMan23 @ 46:
Correction... 95% of Americans will get a tax cut under Obama's plan.
And by the way... this is what FDR did and it created the "golden age of capitalism" and the fastest increase in the GDP in American history.
constituent @ 60:
For your reading pleasure....
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3869458&page=1
Login or Register to post comments.