May 25, 2006
THE LAST TAX CUT?....The IRS has finally sent up the white flag in a long running legal battle over whether the 3% excise tax on long distance phone calls applies to calls that are billed at a flat rate (as opposed to calls that are billed based on "distance and elapsed transmission time"). The answer is no, so now the tax goes away and a bunch of (mostly corporate) customers will get several billion dollars in refunds.
I don't actually care one way or the other about this tax, but I couldn't resist posting this sentence from the Bloomberg summary:
The courts' involvement may deliver a victory to tax-cutting Republicans in Washington who are running out of taxes to cut and are facing a projected $300 billion budget deficit for this year.
"Running out of taxes to cut." It's funny cause it's true! And since the entire domestic policy apparatus of the modern Republican Party is based on tax cuts for their campaign contributors, what will they do now?
—Kevin Drum 2:49 PM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (147)
Running out of taxes to cut? Ha! WHat about the AMT which whacks more Americans than this bullshit.
Posted by: Marcus Wellby on May 25, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK
I'm not sure I care about this either, Kevin. However, I don't quite understand. The tax-cutting Republicans are running out of taxes to cut and presumably are leaving no stone unturned looking for more. Yet, they are faced with a $300 billion dollar budget deficit. How does this "tax cut" and the coincidental refund of billions reduce this deficit?
Posted by: bigcat on May 25, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK
bigcat, here's how it works: You cut taxes and then the supply-side economics fairy comes and magically causes tax revenue to increase. If they could cut taxes to 0, then tax revenue would magically shoot to infinity and then there would be no more deficit!
Posted by: don Hosek on May 25, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK
The GOP proved long ago that you can never fall below the right edge-point of the Laffer curve, right? :)
Posted by: K on May 25, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin, Hugh Hewitt puts it something like this: "Win the war, cut the taxes, confirm the judges, control the spending, secure the border."
Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on May 25, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK
What did the GOP do in the early 1990's? Oh yea, pray that the Democrats take over and solve the fiscal crisis. Yes, the GOP strategy might just be to pray that these lose and some politicians will the courage to do the right thing raise taxes - which of course, they'll vote against.
Posted by: pgl on May 25, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK
There are always Social Security Taxes to cut, of course to paraphrase Bush's HUD Secretary:
"Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the [tax cuts]. That's the way I believe."
Posted by: Catch22 on May 25, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK
Cut the employer side of the payroll tax. Why should my employer fund my social security?
/snark
Posted by: Heron on May 25, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK
1. Borrow lots of money to bribe wealthy contributors into bribing you back for more tax cuts and givaways.
2. Drive up interest rates to the disasterous late-1980's levels.
3. Start a war in the middle-east (funded with borrowed money, using china-manufactured hardware).
4. Watch inflation go sky high, thus erasing any personal debts (and corporate debts).
5. Watch oil and gold commodity prices go sky high (increasing profits for those who borrowed tons of money to invest while prices were low, knowing they were going to go up, because they knew what their man in the white house was planning to do).
6. Leave office and get cushy "consulting" job.
7. Rest easy knowing that the eviscerated middle class, now paying for elevated oil prices with de-valued dollars, will never be able to fund a serious opponent for election to public office.
8. PROFIT!!!
Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on May 25, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK
"Win the war, cut the taxes, confirm the judges, control the spending, secure the border."
He forgot the pony!!!
Posted by: ckelly on May 25, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK
We're hardly 'running out of texas' to cut. Americans pay more than a third of their income in taxes; tax freedom day was April 26th this year.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/
It's also interesting to note that the federal government profits more off of each gallon of gas sold than the oil companies do...
Posted by: American Hawk on May 25, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK
We're hardly 'running out of texas' to cut.
I've been arguing to cut Texas for years.
Posted by: ckelly on May 25, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK
The most interesting part of this story to me is that the tax was a luxury tax made in 1898 as a tax on wealthy Americans with phones... and it was still around.
It's a good lesson on why you should fight all taxes because they tend to stick around.
Posted by: Frank J. on May 25, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin - what will the Democrats do if they win Congress? Here's the Demo plan: "Lose the war, raise the taxes, bash the judges, increase the spending, open the borders."
Posted by: Down goes Frazier on May 25, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK
American Hawk - both your statements are completely untrue.
Posted by: keptsimple on May 25, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK
BTW, how did the war with Spain turn out and did the tax help?
Posted by: Frank J. on May 25, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK
oh cmon,
lets get back to talking about how the war in iraq was really about oil, shall we??
Posted by: christAlmighty on May 25, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK
The democrats want to take your guns.
Posted by: Al on May 25, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK
I don't see a problem for the GOP if there are no more taxes to cut. The solution couldn't be more plain: Break out the public credit card, and start issuing oodles of sweet, fat federal contracts. Why, our new Wacht am Rio Grande policies oughta be good for tens of billions -- for the right people, natch.....
Posted by: sglover on May 25, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK
And since the entire domestic policy apparatus of the modern Republican Party is based on tax cuts for their campaign contributors, what will they do now?
Since they have no policy but torture, overt or covert, I guess it's Guantanamo for the lot us.
Posted by: cld on May 25, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK
Unemployment during April, 2006 was 4.7%. 138,000 new payroll jobs were added to the economy.
OK, Dems, now explain how increasing taxes will help the economy.
Any answer, Pelosi/Reid/Kennedy/Dean ??
Posted by: Afro Thunder on May 25, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK
It's also interesting to note that the federal government profits more off of each gallon of gas sold than the oil companies do...
Posted by: American Hawk on May 25, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK
The Federal Government doesn't "Profit" off of anything. When the Federal Government brings in revenue, that pays for services. If nothing else, it's only fair that when we spend $300 Billion to take over some middle-eastern shithole that happens to be the second largest supply of oil in the world, that some of the money from selling the oil go to pay for what's essentially a private mercenary action.
(gee, I wish the government would pay $300 Billion to secure land and resources for MY line of business.)
Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on May 25, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK
OK, Dems, now explain how increasing taxes will help the economy.
Clinton passed a more progressive tax plan at the beginning of his first term--followed by the largest economic expansion in history. Even disregarding the internet boom, the economy grew--despite the dire predictions from the idiots on the right.
Game, set, match.
Posted by: haha on May 25, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin Drum: "And since the entire domestic policy apparatus of the modern Republican Party is based on tax cuts for their campaign contributors, what will they do now?"
They could go beyond tax cuts to income subsidies. They are doing that for a special few right now, with their Halliburtons and oil buddies. But they could give every Republican contributor a big bonus. These are, after all, the people who do the most for the economy.
And it is all just stolen from the future anyway.
Posted by: PTate in MN on May 25, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK
explain how increasing taxes will help the economy.
Universal Health Care.
Posted by: cld on May 25, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK
How could Democrats possibly lose the war, increase the spending, bash the judges, or open the borders any worse than the Republicans already have?
Posted by: Doug on May 25, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK
$300 Billion deficit?!? Not when you include aWol's bogus war and several other so-called "emergency" items not in the budget.
Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on May 25, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK
Afro Thunder, I think it takes 150,000 new jobs just to keep up with population growth.
Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on May 25, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK
These days, the argument for "cutting taxes" is mostly so completely detached from both actual reality and the basic concept of why we would need to actually tax anything in the first place that its not really worth posting about.
I put "cutting taxes" in scare quotes because, of course, reducing tax rates while borrowing to fund current expenditures is hardly a "cut" but why should anyone bother dicussing that particular detail? Talk about "an inconvenient truth" . . ha! It would be hilarious if it were not serious.
Apparently, most voters don't really have any rational concept of what the Federal and State budgets actually are, and really believe that there is a giant couch, somewhere in the general vicinity of Washington D.C., and that their tax dollars simply fall into the cracks of that couch, never to be seen again.
You can see from the average social security and Medicare discussions around this board, conducted by a set of the electorate which can harldy be labled average.
So, its clear the the general "anti-tax" position is marketed, sold, and based upon fundamental ignorance and basic cheapness.
I mean, for those Hawks out there, isn't there even the slightest twinge, perhaps lasting only a millisecond, where your brain lodges the folllowing thought: that "wait a minute, how is it that I can be so in favor of advocating voluntary death in a foreign country for the greater good of this country and yet not be in favor of actually funding the country's government with my money, which of course is nothing compared to actual life?"
I mean, don't allow yourself to think about that one too much, it might lead to a stroke.
Posted by: hank on May 25, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK
It's also interesting to note that the federal government profits more off of each gallon of gas sold than the oil companies do...
Let's see . . .
January 2000:
Gas price $1.28, refinery cut 10 cents, crude oil cut 60 cents, federal gas tax 18.4 cents
April 2006:
Gas price 2.74, refinery cut 71 cents, crude oil cut 148 cents, federal gas tax 18.4 cents
hmmm . . . would I rather own a refinery, own crude oil reserves, or be a bureaucrat for the federal highway administration, hmmmmm. . . .
Posted by: toast on May 25, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK
explain how increasing taxes will help the economy.
Subsidize some of the startup costs for alternative energy sources.
Posted by: Tripp on May 25, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK
Kevin:
you should discuss that number of $300 billion in the quote that you cite: the deficit in 2006 will be $550 billion. It is only $300 billion if you include the SocSecurity surplus. The social security surplus *is* federal budget debt, unless you don't intend to repay it.
Posted by: cedichou on May 25, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK
OK, Dems, now explain how increasing taxes will help the economy.
explain how they won't. don't forget to show your work.
Posted by: cleek on May 25, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK
Frank J. - you suck at reading legislative history. I'd go back and read the five court cases and actually note the real arguments, and then go to the legislative history actually cited by the cases, before you make baseless assertions.
Posted by: Anonymous on May 25, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK
Anonymous,
Are you saying this tax wasn't enacted in 1898 to help fight the Spaniards?
And you could put a gun to my head and I wouldn't read all that. Did you?
And were the Spaniards defeated? Anyone know?
Posted by: Frank J. on May 25, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK
Bloomberg seems to be collectively smoking something:
The courts' involvement may deliver a victory to tax-cutting Republicans in Washington who are running out of taxes to cut and are facing a projected $300 billion budget deficit for this year.
How does this help "tax-cutting Republicans"? I mean, when the courts deliver a tax cut, its pretty hard for the Republicans in Congress or the White House to claim credit for it, plus it increases the deficit, making it that much harder for them to make political hay with new tax cuts of their own.
Posted by: cmdicely on May 25, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK
The courts' involvement ...
ACTIVIST JUDICIARY !! LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH !! WILL OF THE PEOPLE !!
Posted by: cleek on May 25, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK
Where is tbrosz who always posts this gem of economic wisdom on this subject: Neither its shape nor the number of maxima it has are known, but the Laffer curve is real?
Posted by: lib on May 25, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK
Yeah, I think PTate hits the nail on the head answering Kevin's question. To go beyond tax cuts, you simply move into income subsidies. Whether it's payment to grow ethanol, sugar tariffs or lucrative defense contracts, government money for something close to nothing is the way to go.
Posted by: S Ra on May 25, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK
federal land give aways?
Posted by: B on May 25, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK
ckelly: I've been arguing to cut Texas for years.
And give it back to Mexico. Then build the Big Fence. If we're generous, we could give 'em OC(sorry Kevin), OK & KS.
Posted by: natural cynic on May 25, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK
Yeah, I think PTate hits the nail on the head answering Kevin's question. To go beyond tax cuts, you simply move into income subsidies. Whether it's payment to grow ethanol, sugar tariffs or lucrative defense contracts, government money for something close to nothing is the way to go.
It's called the EITC, a program we should cut to pay for tax cuts.
Posted by: American Hawk on May 25, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK
i say we cap federal payments to states at a level equal to what their citizens pay in taxes.
Posted by: cleek on May 25, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK
And since the entire domestic policy apparatus of the modern Republican Party is based on tax cuts for their campaign contributors, what will they do now?
1. work to make the tax cuts permanent;
2. warn that Democrats will raise the taxes if permitted to take control of Congress;
3. emphasize the progress on Iraq and paint the Democrats as weak on defense -- do this with veterans of Iraq;
4. claim that the prescription drug benefit is better than the alternatives;
5. point to all the new construction projects in their own districts and say "I helped to make sure that our district got its fair share of federal spending."
6. claim that the energy bill could have been passed sooner, and be reducing fuel bills now, if it hadn't been for Democratic obstructionism (e.g., H. Clinton's opposition to bio-ethanol, since reversed);
7. highlight the improvements since the passage of the tort reform and bankruptcy reform;
8. take credit for the fact that the US economy is growing at 2 - 3 times the rate of the economy of the EU;
9. emphasize how hard they worked on the immigration reform bill to protect the rights of natural born citizens and legal immigrants;
10. mock and criticize nationally prominent Democrats and well-known prominent Democrats;
11. take credit for putting Skillings and Lay behind bars.
Those are the main things.
That reminds me. The energy bill contained subsidies for new thermal depolymerization plants, like the Conagra plant in Carthage, MO. does anybody know if any new plants are planned/under construction in consequence of the bill. When I search, I mostly get old news releases about the Carthage plant -- it seems to be doing fine with oil at $70 per barrel, but the details are proprietary.
Posted by: republicrat on May 25, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK
oops, I forgot to mention: take credit for the Supreme Court and lower court judges.
Posted by: republicrat on May 25, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK
Last tax cut? But Kevin, there should be lots more to cut! Don't you know that most of our taxes go to welfare, foreign aid, and big grants to scientists to study the effects of beer on houseplants?
Posted by: Alek Hidell on May 25, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK
tripp: explain how increasing taxes will help the economy.
...
Subsidize some of the startup costs for alternative energy sources.
That's good, if the revenue were targeted, and if everybody believed it would remain targeted. Tax increases might also decrease the deficit and thereby lower interest rates.
I don't mean to imply that the GOP points I listed are all wise, merely that they are available to the GOP, and are probably sufficient to keep them in the majority in the 2006 elections. People continue to tell pollsters that although they disrespect Congress they respect their own congressfolks.
Posted by: republicrat on May 25, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK
"It's also interesting to note that the federal government profits more off of each gallon of gas sold than the oil companies do...
Let's see . . .
January 2000:
Gas price $1.28, refinery cut 10 cents, crude oil cut 60 cents, federal gas tax 18.4 cents
April 2006:
Gas price 2.74, refinery cut 71 cents, crude oil cut 148 cents, federal gas tax 18.4 cents
hmmm . . . would I rather own a refinery, own crude oil reserves, or be a bureaucrat for the federal highway administration, hmmmmm. . . .
Posted by: toast on May 25, 2006 at 3:53 PM"
could you please include the costs incurred by the businesses that got their "cuts?"
Posted by: Brian on May 25, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK
are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? that's the only question that matters
Posted by: ronald reagan on May 25, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK
Tom,
Thermal depolymerization is booming in this country. It is back up to over a 100 barrels a day since they reopened after the odor complaint brouhaha. They might reach 500 barrels/day around Thanksgiving.
Posted by: B on May 25, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK
How does this help "tax-cutting Republicans"?
Because it cuts taxes, which is what they want.
I mean, when the courts deliver a tax cut, its pretty hard for the Republicans in Congress or the White House to claim credit for it,
Getting a tax cut and claiming credit for it are not the same thing.
plus it increases the deficit,
We don't know what effect it will have on the deficit.
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK
are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
Yes.
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK
are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
Not really.
Posted by: Dead US Soldiers on May 25, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK
are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
You betcha.
Posted by: OsamaBL on May 25, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK
^
The above commenter heavily implies that dead US soldiers don't go to heaven, which I think is insulting to the troops.
Posted by: American Hawk on May 25, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK
could you please include the costs incurred by the businesses that got their "cuts?"
Do it yourself asshole. I'll guarantee you that refinery costs have not gone up seven fold in 6 years. The profits reported this year by major petroleum companies should help you connect the dots.
It's simple economics. Refinery capacity in this country has gone down over the last 30 years by about 10% and during the same period gasoline consumption has risen by more than 40%.
Try googling supply and demand.
No one is building more refinery capacity because they either believe in peak oil or free trade has made foreign refineries without polution controls too competitive.
Posted by: toast on May 25, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK
are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
Yes.
Posted by: iraqis on May 25, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK
are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
I am since they invented the brainwave-controlled XBox controller! Did a Republican do that?
Posted by: Limbless US soldier on May 25, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK
Absolutely, I am better off than I was 4 years ago.
Posted by: Afro Thunder on May 25, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK
are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
Business is booming.
No pun intended.
Posted by: Iranian bomb-builder on May 25, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK
are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
Yeah baby!
Posted by: Exxon on May 25, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK
are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
Yes. Demand for my services has been absolutely exploding.
Posted by: Iraqi IED-builder on May 25, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK
"could you please include the costs incurred by the businesses that got their "cuts?"
Do it yourself asshole. I'll guarantee you that refinery costs have not gone up seven fold in 6 years. The profits reported this year by major petroleum companies should help you connect the dots.
It's simple economics. Refinery capacity in this country has gone down over the last 30 years by about 10% and during the same period gasoline consumption has risen by more than 40%.
Try googling supply and demand.
No one is building more refinery capacity because they either believe in peak oil or free trade has made foreign refineries without polution controls too competitive.
Posted by: toast on May 25, 2006 at 5:52 PM"
now that's what i call substantive reply.
energy companies tend to have profit margins in the 8-10 percent range, are you saying that is excessive or maybe obscene?
i suppose opposition to new refineries by "enviromentalists," general nimbyism and government ruegulations couldn't play a role in our lacking refining capacity.
Posted by: Brian on May 25, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK
are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
Thanks to America, yes.
Posted by: The World in General on May 25, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK
are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
Yes.
Posted by: The World on May 25, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK
are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
Financially - no
Physiologically - yes
Psychologically - yes
Am I happy - yes
Oh, and I almost forgot.....
George W Bush - Worst President ForEver...
Posted by: Tank man on May 25, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK
It's a good lesson on why you should fight all taxes because they tend to stick around.
I would rather fight assholes who want their brothers to cut heads off of Iraqis and then send them home as trophies.
Posted by: Hosile on May 25, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK
Perhaps Hastert can engineer a negative tax rate for the uuper income so they may better improve the economy.
Posted by: Matt on May 25, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK
No one is building more refinery capacity because they either believe in peak oil or free trade has made foreign refineries without polution controls too competitive.
Shell and another company are expanding their refineries in the Houston area. According to the report I read, they are doing the permitting now and expect to start construction in early summer. Apparently they made their decisions immediatly after Katrina passed.
Posted by: republicrat on May 25, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK
are you saying that is excessive or maybe obscene?
No asshole, I'm saying they're making a shitload of money because they control or own a limited resource that is in high demand. The same was true of tulips for a short time. The same would be true if I found a car sized gold nugget in my backyard. I expressed no value judgement other than to say you were an asshole. I work for an oil company for christ's sake.
i suppose opposition to new refineries by "enviromentalists," general nimbyism and government ruegulations couldn't play a role in our lacking refining capacity.
Didn't I just say that clean air act (along with labor costs) are encouraging us to utilize foreign refineries in places like Chavez's Venezuela?
Posted by: toast on May 25, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK
True republicrat. Profits are high enough to encourage a bit of this. A refinery is in the finance/planning stages in Arizona too. As far as I know no one has started construction yet.
Posted by: toast on May 25, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK
...what will they do now?
Cut tax rates on interest income. Just in time for the rise in interest rates. Sure to be a hit with the non-earned-income crowd.
Posted by: has407 on May 25, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK
Didn't I just say that clean air act (along with labor costs) are encouraging us to utilize foreign refineries in places like Chavez's Venezuela?
actually, you did not say that, cocksucker.
Posted by: The World in General on May 25, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK
Didn't I just say that clean air act (along with labor costs) are encouraging us to utilize foreign refineries in places like Chavez's Venezuela?
actually, you did not say that, cocksucker.
Posted by: Brian on May 25, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK
Sorry, "unearned income" not "non-earned-income".
I'm surprised the tax-bashers haven't tried to get the IRS to change that.
Posted by: has407 on May 25, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK
Cut tax rates on interest income.
Hopefully, yes.
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK
Hmmm... now there's a pandering thought... bring back the interest expense deduction for credit cards. Heck, make it for any interest expense. With negative savings and increasing household debt, it's sure to be a big hit.
Posted by: has407 on May 25, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK
Well, here is what I said:
free trade has made foreign refineries without polution (sic) controls too competitive.
Simple logic would suggest the problem could be addressed by removing our pollution controls, forcing them to match ours, or placing a tariff on their refined gasoline to protest their unfair trade practices. A little reading comprehension is necessary here, asshole.
Posted by: cocksucker on May 25, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK
After all the taxes are cut, they need to build a wall around America to keep that pesky foreign money out. Or do I mean, in? Well, something involving a wall, dammit. And Jesus. Maybe a wall around Jesus will be the 2008 platform.
Posted by: craigie on May 25, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK
Hmmm... now there's a pandering thought... bring back the interest expense deduction for credit cards.
Very bad idea. But your suggestion to cut taxes on interest income was a good one.
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK
toast, at least you're now correctly identifying yourself.
Posted by: butter on May 25, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK
A wall on which we cricufy illegal immigrants. Or maybe just mount their heads.
Posted by: has407 on May 25, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK
Illegal immigrants should be deported, not murdered.
Posted by: Yank on May 25, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK
Shell and another company are expanding their refineries in the Houston area.
Posted by: republicrat on May 25, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK
Wow. Oil and Gasoline prices have been ramping steadily for 6 years (Initially due to Enron's market manipulation, moreso after 9/11, moreso after Iraq). What took them so long?
A: The FTP only just now started sniffing around for evidence of collusion and price gouging.
Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on May 25, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK
They'll just try again. Besides, it was cragie's idea for a "Jesus wall". Although after devoting another nanosecond of thought to it, maybe something like out of the last scene from Spartacus would be more appropriate, only more high tech.
Posted by: has407 on May 25, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK
GOP: Very bad idea. But your suggestion to cut taxes on interest income was a good one.
Hah! It fits GOP pandering, vote-buying and lack of fiscal responsibility perfectly. I'm sure Grover Norquist et. al. would approve. Or are you one of those half-measure or policy wonk weenies?
Posted by: has407 on May 25, 2006 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK
Hah! It fits GOP pandering, vote-buying and lack of fiscal responsibility perfectly.
Assuming "it" refers to your proposal for a tax deduction for credit card interest, no; it fits liberal fiscal irresponsibility perfectly. Encourage people to rack up more and more personal debt on their credit cards by subsidizing their interest payments with other people's money
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK
They'll just try again.
Then we'll try deporting them again. But if you think they should be murdered instead, you're perfectly free to push that idea.
Posted by: Yank on May 25, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK
GOP -- Right. Like the federal deficit; it fits with the conservative idea of fiscal rresponsibility perfectly. Encourage a pandering vote-buying group of politicians in Washington to rack up more and more debt by subsidizing their spending with other countries' money.
Posted by: has407 on May 25, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK
My children and grandchildren will pay you Tuesday, for a tax cut today.
Posted by: Wimpy on May 25, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK
Yank -- See here.
Posted by: has407 on May 25, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK
GOP describes tax breaks for cc interest as follows:
Encourage people to rack up more and more personal debt on their credit cards by subsidizing their interest payments with other people's money
Finally a wingnut admits that he believes that the taxes that the middle class pay are "other people's money".
Posted by: Disputo on May 25, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK
I do not understand how the flat taxers still claim that reduced taxes can lead to smaller goverment when their own Cato founder proved that wrong. It is as if they were simply dumb and deaf for the four weeks this concept was discussed right here on this blog.
It is a small government conservative, libertarian discovery. It is not the progressive taxers who increase the size of government, cause illegal immigration, and rob the private sector. It is the big government conservatives who have always done that.
It is te Reagans and Bushes who are behind the largest growth in government, both in relative and absolute terms. It is these two bozoz with their big government approach who have caused the greatest migration from south of the border.
It is the Freepers, the core of the Republican party who has grown government for the last 40 years. The one exception to that was JKF, who flattened taxes and caused the third largest increase in government in modern times (LBJ). Only Reagan and lil George have increased government and robbed the private sector to a greater amount.
Like Frequently Ken, the policies he espouses are nothing short of Stalinism, communism in its worst form.
Posted by: Matt on May 25, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK
has407 -- See here.
Posted by: Yank on May 25, 2006 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK
GOP -- Right. Like the federal deficit; it fits with the conservative idea of fiscal rresponsibility perfectly.
No, the federal deficit fits with the liberal idea of fiscal responsibility perfectly. Democratic congresses passed deficit budgets virtually every year they were in power over the past half century or more. Liberals just love spending money they don't have.
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK
Disputo,
You're not much for reading, are you, wingnut?
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK
I officially declare GOP a clueless troll for the following:
No, the federal deficit fits with the liberal idea of fiscal responsibility perfectly. Democratic congresses passed deficit budgets virtually every year they were in power over the past half century or more. Liberals just love spending money they don't have.
If GOP was not a troll, he would understand that half of the federal debt was acquired during the last 5 GWB and GOP-controlled-congress years.
Posted by: Disputo on May 25, 2006 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINK
GOP says:
You're not much for reading, are you, wingnut?
LOL. I'm not much for parsing the insane rantings of a wingnut. Please, try to unpack your gibberish and enlighten us, or leave us all knowing what a retard you are.
Posted by: Disputo on May 25, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK
It is te Reagans and Bushes who are behind the largest growth in government, both in relative and absolute terms.
Er, federal spending decreased by 1% of GDP under Reagan.
But don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK
... would understand that half of the federal debt was acquired during the last 5 GWB and GOP-controlled-congress years.
If Disputo were not a clueless troll, he might understand that this claim has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my observation of the utterly appalling record of fiscal irresponsibility that the Democrats have demonstrated for at least half a century.
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK
I'm not much for parsing the insane rantings of a wingnut.
You're not much of anything, except insane.
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK
GOP -- The deficits since the GOP has controlled congress for the last decade are worse than any Democratic congress for any period in memory.
So by your own admission, the GOP has managed to be more fiscally irresponsible--and accomplish that irresponsibility much faster--than the Democrats ever have. Wow!
Now there's a resounding affirmation of the GOP's can-do attitude. Keep it up!
Posted by: has407 on May 25, 2006 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK
GOP wrote: "Er, federal spending decreased by 1% of GDP under Reagan."
Um, no, not really. See this post for a debunking of that myth.
Posted by: PaulB on May 25, 2006 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK
One more attempt at playing whack-a-mole with GOP's increasingly blantant lies:
federal spending decreased by 1% of GDP under Reagan.
1) The original poster was addressing federal spending levels. They did not "decrease" as you say. Federal spending as a %age of GDP decreased, which is a different measure.
2) Of course, this decrease only occured after Reagan first *increased* federal spending as a % of GDP by 1.5 %age pts his first year in office.
3) The subsequent 1%age pt decrease didn't occur by decreasing the nominator (which Reagan had control over), but by increasing the denominator (which Reagan had no control over).
Well, that's all the debunking time I have for tonight.
Posted by: Disputo on May 25, 2006 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK
Al: "The democrats want to take your guns."
And that's not all. The democrats want mandatory attendance at gay lifestyle classes in the public schools!!!
Al -- Midwestern Div. (a wholly-owned subsidiary)
Posted by: shystr on May 25, 2006 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK
"... since the entire domestic policy apparatus of the modern Republican Party is based on tax cuts for their campaign contributors, what will they do now?"
Are you kidding? How about campaigning on the threat of Democrats raising taxes? A trap which Democrats are all too happy to fall into!
Geez, no wonder Democrats keep losing elections. Looks like another ten years of Republican majority rule are in store.
Posted by: Brad on May 25, 2006 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK
Yank -- Sorry; not sure what's happened to my sense of... whatever... a noun I can deal with , but a transitive verb just seems so... ummm... effette.
Posted by: has407 on May 25, 2006 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK
has407,
GOP -- The deficits since the GOP has controlled congress for the last decade are worse than any Democratic congress for any period in memory.
Er, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives ran a deficit of 6% of GDP in 1983, 4.8% in 1984, 5.1% in 1985 and 5% in 1986. These exceed any deficit under GWB. And they weren't fighting a war.
So by your own admission, the GOP has managed to be more fiscally irresponsible
No, by your own admission, the Democrats have managed to be more fiscally irresponsible. The Democrats have a 50-year record of gross fiscal incompetence and irresponsibility.
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK
PaulB,
Um, no, not really. See this post for a debunking of that myth.
Er, not only does that post not "debunk" my factual claim, it confirms it, quoting the OMB budget numbers showing the 1% decline in spending under Reagan.
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK
Disputo:
1) The original poster was addressing federal spending levels. They did not "decrease" as you say.
Yes they did.
Federal spending as a %age of GDP decreased, which is a different measure.
Federal spending as a percentage of GDP is "federal spending levels."
2) Of course, this decrease only occured after Reagan first *increased* federal spending as a % of GDP by 1.5 %age pts his first year in office.
So what? The point is that spending decreased under Reagan. Matt's claim that "the Reagans and Bushes who are behind the largest growth in government" is utter nonsense.
3) The subsequent 1%age pt decrease didn't occur by decreasing the nominator (which Reagan had control over), but by increasing the denominator (which Reagan had no control over).
Another claim that would be utterly irrelevant even if it were true (It's not; presidents obviously have some influence over GDP).
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK
GOP - Cherry pick four out of the "50-year record". Not to mention trying to change the subject from Congress to Reagan. Go fish.
Posted by: has407 on May 25, 2006 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK
Once all the taxes are cut that's when Republicans heat up the culture wars in earnest -- you know, protests at family planning clinics, anti-gay marriage amendments, flag burning amendments, prayer in the schools, school vouchers, "activist" judges, unions -- don't forget unions.
Then there's Iran, North Korea and the Global War on Terror.
Republicans are never without a bogeyman to turn into the next polarizing, get-out-the-vote cause, even after they have proven for the last six years they can't govern.
Posted by: pj in jesusland on May 25, 2006 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK
has407,
GOP - Cherry pick four out of the "50-year record".
Considering that I only need one to refute your false claim that "the deficits since the GOP has controlled congress for the last decade are worse than any Democratic congress for any period in memory," the other three are just gravy. And in fact those four are just examples, not a complete list. You obviously don't know what you're talking about and just threw out that made-up claim in the vain hope that it's true and wouldn't be challenged. I see this kind of thing from liberals all the time.
And the relevance of the 50-year record is that the Democrats have run a deficit virtually every year during that period. They are hopelessly irresponsible.
Not to mention trying to change the subject from Congress to Reagan. Go fish.
More nonsense. I didn't "change the subject" to Reagan. I mentioned Reagan in response to another false claim, the false claim that "It is the Reagans and Bushes who are behind the largest growth in government, both in relative and absolute terms."
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK
GOP, you smell awful.
Deep down inside your soul.
Posted by: Reality on May 25, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK
Have I mentioned I'm gay?
Pass my anal tickler, honey.
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK
I have taken severe beatings on this topic many times before, but as I'm a lonely old troll, I can't help but butting in yet again and making a total fool of myself with my shabby, fact-deficient arguments.
But I don't really care. As long as I can waste everyone's time and get attention (even negative) it keeps me from the terror of my loneliness.
Signed,
Don/Al/GOP/whatever said pathetic name I make up to not die of boredom
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK
Shut up, jerkoff.
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK
That wasn't me. You libtards can't handle the truth.
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK
Yeah I didn't think so. Your arguments all suck - pure emotion, no facts.
Your days are through.
Posted by: GOP on May 25, 2006 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK
GOP -- Integrate deficits as a percentage of GDP. Correlate with Republican control of the White House or Congress, as you wish. Then correlate with GDP growh and deficits during and after those periods (hint: use a 1-2 year lag). If you can't manage that, then find someone who can. Bottom line--you're taking out your ass, not your head. Go fish.
Posted by: has407 on May 25, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK
Once all the taxes are cut that's when Republicans heat up the culture wars in earnest -- you know, protests at family planning clinics, anti-gay marriage amendments, flag burning amendments, prayer in the schools, school vouchers, "activist" judges, unions -- don't forget unions.
This reminds me of something I've thought about for a while now: GOP apologists rationalized the Iraq War by arguing, "Granted, a lot of innocent folks will surely die, but it's all good because the survivors will be better off in the long run."
Does this not sound like the exact same rationalization that pro-choicers use to defend abortion rights?
Anyway, food for thought...
Posted by: Moonlight on May 25, 2006 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK
I see the bonehead troll still hasn't learned the difference between on-budget and unified.
What a moron.
Posted by: BB on May 25, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK
OT
I have a better appreciation of this blog after having my comments on the new NYTimes blog unceremoniusly rejected for no apprent reason.
Seems like the bloggers do not understand this web thing very well.
This blog is the best in terms of the comments section.
Posted by: lib on May 25, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK
Er, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives ran a deficit of 6% of GDP in 1983, 4.8% in 1984, 5.1% in 1985 and 5% in 1986. These exceed any deficit under GWB. And they weren't fighting a war.
But they were able to strong-arm Reagan into signing what they passed.
Reagan, he always was a pussy.
Posted by: haha on May 25, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK
Wait till the Russian OIL Bourse opens on the 8th...I hear say.
Oy.
RIA Novosti - Russia - Putin proposes creation of ruble ...
RTS bourse to start trading oil, oil products, gold on June 8 ... To this end, we need to open a stock exchange in Russia to trade in oil, gas, ...
en.rian.ru/russia/20060510/47915635.html
Posted by: Heil Heir Hawke on May 26, 2006 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK
Clinton takes office - deficit
Clinton leaves office - surplus
Bush takes office - surplus
Bush takes office - deficit
GOP in control of House for all but 2 of those 14 years.
Now, was there some point you were trying to make? Were peace and prosperity so intolerable that the GOP, in control of the entire government, had to abandon both?
Posted by: craigie on May 26, 2006 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK
Posted by: Matt on May 25, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK
Pretty much said it.
I came late and cannot read it all. Apologies.
Science, evidence, truth has nothing to do with the Republican Party. They have totally lost sight of society and practical application of politics. It is now politics and only politics. People don't matter.
I see GOP has turned up again. Unless he/she puts proposals/reason on the line, I don't see any need to debate with him/her. (S)he's beyond it.
Posted by: notthere on May 26, 2006 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK
Hang onto that post craigie...
It's a vintage slap to the face of every republican in America.
Posted by: koreyel on May 26, 2006 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK
Win the elections in 2006?
What's my prize?
Posted by: Birkel on May 26, 2006 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK
Read Juan Cole now...
Talk about pissing in Condi's mouth...
Posted by: koreyel on May 26, 2006 at 12:25 AM | PERMALINK
nello - if that's true, then clearly Republicans did not evolve from apes.
Posted by: craigie on May 26, 2006 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK
Science, evidence, truth has nothing to do with the Republican Party.
Who needs science, evidence and truth when you have Fox News.
Posted by: Stephen on May 26, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK
Were peace and prosperity so intolerable that the GOP, in control of the entire government, had to abandon both?
Well, yeah. Peace and prosperity lead the masses to demand freedom and progress; war and financial uncertainty make them more willing to accept sacrifice of those for the illusion of security -- totalitarianism rides on the back of fear.
Posted by: cmdicely on May 26, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK
For all you head in the sand liberals and democrats, we do not live in a totalitiarian country, as cm would like for you to believe. What did you say about fear. It sounds like you are the one doing all the fear mongering cmdicely.
5.3 GDP growth is prosperity. 4.7% unemployement is prosperity. There are many economic indicators which say we are prospering. We are helping free the middle east of totalitarian rule like what was happening in Afghanistan and Iraq or do you liken those states to freedom loving, propserous nations.
Posted by: Clinton Era on May 26, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK
craigie,
It is clear that you have evolved from the shit that lies under rocks.
Posted by: Clinton Era on May 26, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK
AM HAWK could you explain how you are better off?
Posted by: Now on May 26, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK
Now take the fed debt and put it against the GDP and run them numbers then come back and tell us all who has there head in the sand.Clinton raised taxes to pay off Dear Ronnies tax cuts(You remember them, the ones the repugs wanted so badly to take credit for)We had the largest expansion in History.Both times the repugs have tried tax cuts we have had to live off borrowed money.9 trillion now and climbing.
Posted by: Now on May 26, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK
has407,
GOP -- Integrate deficits as a percentage of GDP. Correlate with Republican control of the White House or Congress, as you wish. Then correlate with GDP growh and deficits during and after those periods (hint: use a 1-2 year lag). If you can't manage that, then find someone who can. Bottom line--you're taking out your ass, not your head.
I'm not sure what "integrating deficits as a percentage of GDP" is even supposed to mean, still less why you think doing that would have any relevance to anything I've said. I caught you making an obviously false claim, a claim that you yourself would have realized was nonsense if you had bothered checking the actual budget data, and now you're just flailing around trying to divert attention from your error.
Posted by: GOP on May 26, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK
I am insane.
Posted by: BB on May 26, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK
Me too.
My soul is also profoundly corrupt.
Posted by: Reality on May 26, 2006 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK
Notice how I insist on speaking last? It shows how strong my argument is.
What's an on-budget deficit? Oh, who cares. Libbies sux! Pass the soap!
Posted by: GOP on May 26, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK
Hah Heh GOP mocked himself,what a dweeb.
Posted by: Now on May 26, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK
No new taxes?!? I thought all this time my Poppy was for no nude Texans!
Posted by: George W. Bush on May 26, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK
GOP -- Yes, that's definitely flailing around; I don't dispute the figures you quote. (A spoof or I drank a helluva lot more than I thought last night.)
Posted by: has407 on May 26, 2006 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK