You state that tax revenues are higher than expected. Well, we know that's because the Administration games the estimates.

But are revenues higher than before the tax cuts?

We want numbers!

Laffer curve vindicated? Only if you screw with the numbers.

If you pursue policies that increase income inequality, then corporations and the rich will have more money. If the rich have more money, they'll pay more taxes. And since tax rates are progressive, that means tax revenue will be higher than you'd expect if you based your estimates solely on the overall rate of economic growth.

That's a great point Kevin. That's also a good reason why the best policy is to make the rich have more money. This leads to greater tax revenue than if the poor have more money as you pointed out. The greater tax revenue is then used to finance tax cuts for the wealthy who then use that money to invest in their companies. The investment results in greater economic growth, more jobs, and lower employment. So making the rich richer helps everyone, including the poor and the middle class because of the new jobs.

boring again, Al

"Income tax receipts are still less than they were in 2000." - Ben Stein on Fox 6/17/06

WSJ news article: Tax data suggest that income inequality in the United States is growing...

WSJ editorial page: Look, over there! Terrorists! Illegal immigrants! Queers getting engaged! Let's get 'em, boys! CHARRRRRGE!

and for more perspective...

Federal tax revenues FELL in 2001...

AGAIN in 2002...

and DOWN even more in 2003....

That hasn't happened since the great depression

Al: trite, boring, and inaccurate. At least "American Hawk" gives me something to laugh at.

But are revenues higher than before the tax cuts?

Good question. I think remember Kevin posting on just this and showed that not even conservative economists believe that tax cuts "pay for themselves". (I believe it was a link to a Mallaby article.) I'm not sure why Kevin failed to point that out again here.

Al:

At the risk of responding to a spam-bot -- Kevin's point is that the economy in no way grew at the rate that tax receipts did.

That means that the Laffer curve simply didn't work in its own terms. It was supposed to increase revenues by fostering new economic growth. The growth would, of course, outpace the new revenues because tax rates were lowered.

Well, if economic growth remains relatively the same and revenues soar -- that's because the rich are getting richer and our tax code is still (thank the gods) progressive.

Wbich has nothing to do with the Laffer curve, which is about the relationship of tax rates to economic growth.

Bob

Tom Nugent, Ted Nugent what's the difference?

Same right wing tripe. But what's scary is how long the Laffer Curve Lie has worked politically for the GOP. And what's sad is how little the Democrats have ever made that an issue.

Possibilities could have included: Don't be an idiot, there's no free lunch! Or, That's a lie, Mr Bush and you know it. Income receipts went down after the Reagan cuts - it's the Social Security taxes that went up, after they were raised. etc.

Destroying your opponent's credibility is one of the best political weapons out there - but you have to be a bit nasty to use it. Oh well.

that's the difference between you and the rich.

If the government asks them to pay less of their money in taxes, they pay in more.

Let us ask them to pay nothing, and our treasury will soon be bursting at the seems.

Amazing.

Samuel Knight: Destroying your opponent's credibility is one of the best political weapons out there - but you have to be a bit nasty to use it.

What's this "little bit" stuff? Politics is supposed to be a full contact sport. While I'm no fan of personal attacks, destroying and ridiculing the opposition's positions is supposed to be part of the game.

Next up on Hannity and Colmes: Are corporations paying more than their fair share so deadbeat Americans can pay less in taxes?

Shorter Kevin Drum: Increasing tax revenues is a bad thing if it means rich people are making more money.

Oops... should be "are a bad thing".

Kevin quotes the WSJ: ... the average American still gives President Bush low marks on the economy despite its overall strength.

Typical class warfare by average Americans.

If the rich are paying more taxes, don't we need to cut their tax rates again?

Shorter Homer: yesssss, masssssters... homer worships your power, massssters... no, do not give homer any yummy, homer is happy with his stale crussst of bread... masssssters must grow richer! massssters must have more gold! Massssters! Massssssters!!!!

Same right wing tripe. But what's scary is how long the Laffer Curve Lie has worked politically for the GOP.

You can't refute a theology.

PGL @ Angry Bear discussed another angle to this here:
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2006/07/sesame-street-math-for-grover-norquist.html

"We should also mention that the “surge” in tax revenues had transitional elements that will not likely re-occur next year either."

Commentor K Harris explains "transitional elements":

"Transitional" can mean a couple of things, depending on the tax. During recovery, tax revenue can rise quite strongly. The widely-touted increase in tax revenue this year brings us back closer to historic norms. In a tax regime aimed at reducing revenue as a share of GDP, what are the odds that tax revenue as a share of GDP will continue to rise? More likely, we have just been shaking off the revenue implications of a slowdown, and once that's done, the "transition" will be complete, and revenue will grow at something more like the pace of GDP growth.

The other form of "transition" has to do with capital gains taxes. There is a chunk of assets out there for which sale will take place at a lower tax rate, but not at a higher one. When capital gains tax rates are cut, the gates are open, and that chunk of transactions takes place, generating revenue. Once that backlog is cleared up, we fall back to a normal pace of transactions, generating less growth in capital gains revenue. A similar pattern can be seen when there is a speculative surge in asset prices. Capital gains on a high volume of turn-over generates lots of tax revenue, till the bust happens. Stocks in the 1990s, housing more recently.

A relevant passage from the Economist:

All told, Mr Bush's tax policy may have played a modest role in boosting a temporary revenue surge. But that is very different from suggesting, as the White House does, that tax cuts were the main cause or that they permanently pay for themselves. Most serious economists have long laughed at the idea that Mr Bush's tax cuts raise revenue. Now, it seems, the president's own boffins agree. Deep in the Mid-Session Review is a claim that the Bush tax cuts could eventually raise the level of GDP by 0.7%, a relatively modest effect, and one that itself depends on the tax cuts being financed by lower spending.

Homer,

The Laffer theory is based on the old saying that "a rising tide raises all boats."

What the increased revenues indicate is that this tide isn't rising. The big yachts are being hoisted higher out of the water while the rest of us are sinking. Money is moving from our pockets to the corporations' accounts. We are receiving little in return.

You think maybe it has something to do with wages being flat while profits are growing?

In the old days that sign would signal unions demanding more in the way of wages. Without unions we are all on our own so the owners don't feel any need to pay us more. Maybe a resurgent union movement might help most of us who aren't benefitting from our resurgent economy.

Shorter Kevin Drum: Increasing tax revenues is a bad thing if it means rich people are making more money.
Actually, Kevin is reporting that if you give the rich a tax cut, they pay more in taxes. This may be magic, but it's voodoo magic and Satan's handiwork.

Perhaps rising interest rates have something to do with it, that's why my taxes have gone up the last couple of years.

"the alleged vindication of the Laffer Curve"

Kevin might have already linked to this once, but here's Brad DeLong's review of the media stories on this topic:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/07/where_are_the_h.html

Increased GDP pays for about 10% of the lost revenue from tax cuts. The CBO projects an ADDITIONAL .7% of GDP from tax cut stimulus ($146 billion), increasing revenues ~29 billion...Meanwhile, tax cuts have reduced govt. revenue by 314 billion. Hardly a vindication of the Laffer curve.

Actually, Kevin is reporting that if you give the rich a tax cut, they pay more in taxes.

No. Kevin is reporting that if you give the rich a tax cut, they will pay much, much less in taxes for 5 or 6 years; but if your economy continues to grow, as economies have for the past ten thousand years or so, and all of the increased income goes to the rich, then that reduction in tax revenue will not last forever. Of course, they'll never pay as much as they would have, if you hadn't given them a tax cut; but they will pay more than they were paying six years ago.

Mr. Drum, you are talking WAY WAY WAY over any wingnut's head. More useful would be a projection of how long it will take to pay off the national debt, or balance the national budget, given the current rate of tax receipts. I want a full report on my desk in the morning. Thank you.

I just watched "The Smartest Guys in the Room" last night.

That's why these numbers make perfect sense to me.

Robert Carroll, Treasury's deputy assistant secretary for tax policy, said it isn't yet clear whether individual income-tax liability is being boosted by capital gains, wages, equity-based compensation or some other factor

Where did the rich make the money? The stock market is down. It can't be capital gains or equity-based compensation Is it in the "other" category?

Or.... damn their prescient eyes, is it because they took capital gains, and hence paid the capital gains tax, when they exited the stock market at its high this year in early May? That makes sense, for that is about when the dough probably went to Treasury. They're out of the market and only the suckers are in, for the market is going to tank. Yikes! Let's hope they aren't that smart.

Real tax receipts were lower in 2005 than in 2000. (They were also lower in 2004 than in 1999, and lower in 2003 than in 1998.) This despite the fact that the economy and the population grows over time. Before that, the last time that tax receipts were less than they had been five years earlier was in 1984 - during Reagan's experiment with the Laffer curve.

(All the data on tax receipts and dollars spent by the Federal government can be found at at the website of the White House's Office of Management and Budget:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/sheets/hist01z3.xls)

The "increase" in tax collections, despite a growing economy, and a growing population, still leaves us with lower tax collections than five years ago. That makes for a funny argument in favor of the Laffer curve.

Yes, there's gaming going on. Look at the CBO v. OMB projections. The OMB projected to collect less revenue on greater income. For 2006, the CBO projected that the government would collect 16.5% of gross income as individual income taxes. The OMB only expected to collect 15.8%.

"which in turn may explain why the average American still gives President Bush low marks on the economy despite its overall strength."

So strong economic growth is bad. We should really get a Dem in office, raise taxes and wreck the economy, that'd should be good.

Bingo Kevin.

As for Al, investment is NOT the prime mover of economic growth and jobs, consumer spending is. Investment is derived from consumption. Without growth in consumer spending, investment would plunge. (FYI, comsumption is 2/3 of GDP--you do the 'rithmetic.)

Consumption in the current U.S. economy depends on refinancing homes owing to rising house prices, not exactly a healthy underpinning.

Job growth and wage growth, which would be the normal way for the economy to growth, are held down because employers don't want to incur medical benefits costs.

That the U.S. economy story and tax cuts are quite incidental.

Several trends here have to be teased out of the numbers. The first is that something less than half of this mysterious growth was achieved through shifting the tax burden off capital and onto labor. Another aspect is the behavior of the rest of the world in reaction to a country living beyond its means. Russia puts a sizable chunk of its current account surplus in a national stabilization fund similar to Norway's. China has piled up nearly trillion dollars in its central bank. Both countries have used such saving as a de facto inflation tax and to restrain appreciation of their currencies. Russia still has inflation over 10%, while China's inflation rate has been quite low for years.

Freedumb, shush.

1) FF: "So strong economic growth is bad. We should really get a Dem in office, raise taxes and wreck the economy, that'd should be good."

Like Clinton did - and got the longest peacetime expansion in US history. Boy was that dumb!

2) "What's this "little bit" stuff? Politics is supposed to be a full contact sport. While I'm no fan of personal attacks, destroying and ridiculing the opposition's positions is supposed to be part of the game."

Yes, it should be part of the game. Look at what all that bipartisanship after 9-11 did for the Democrats - and more importantly to the country. Just enabled disaster. What's funny reading the Wash Post "analysis" of the whole decline of post 9-11 bipartisanship is how it studiously ignored how the right wing machine that attacked the Clintons just kept on rolling after 9-11.

And yes, if you refuse to punch back, you are in a sense enabling a future attack.

3) Machina:

"Same right wing tripe. But what's scary is how long the Laffer Curve Lie has worked politically for the GOP." You can't refute a theology.

You definitely can't but you can at least make clear to most of the somewhat rational voters that it is a theology - and is widely divorced from any facts. And you can make it even clearer that politicians who subscribe to the philosophy are really just lying to the public.

Average Americans have no choice but to rejoice (see I know how to spell it) over the fortunes of the wealthy. It is all we are allowed.

"If you pursue policies that increase income inequality, then corporations and the rich will have more money. If the rich have more money, they'll pay more taxes."

Somewhere in there is a headache for Grover!

If Bush's apologists were honest, they would factor in the effects of months upon months of record low interest rates and the resulting equity boom in real estate -- from which many middle class saw a substantial benefit -- in addition to Bush's tilted tax cuts, from which many middle class families didn't. But they aren't, so they don't.

The fact that the economy remains lackluster despite the Fed holding the monetary pedal to the metal for so long -- which, of course, it can no longer afford to do -- is proof not only that the Bush tax cuts didn't have their advertised effect, but also that Republicans aren't serious about the economy.

Of course, it's arguable that Bush's tax cuts had their intended effect; it's just that he couldn't advocate them under that particular rationale.

DRUM, YOU SHAMELESS CLOWN:

Most Americans pay little taxes or no taxes or are net tax beneficiaries via welfare, etc. No one receives more for contributing less to government than the poorest and no one receives less for what it contributes than the rich.

The American Taxpayer cannot force people to learn marketable skills and live virtuously healthy and frugal lives; it's called civil liberties. Nor can massive government welfare programs induce people to do the same; er, uh, perhaps you've heard of 1965-1980.

The rich are getting richer; and the poor have never had the free opportunities they have now. I wonder if it even dawns on anyone reading this that the problem is not lack of equal opportunity in America, but the unequal effort employed across the American population in WORKING toward utilizing those opportunities.

When 14 year olds worked in factories, that was different. Today, a poor 14 year old has as much time to study as a rich 14 year old, generally (please, no silly isolated anecdotes). And where there is unequal opportunity it's family-driven, not gov't economic policy driven. So, when you Regressive-Democrats are ready to monitor and direct the lives of families, then say so; it will mean no longer fetisizing civil liberties, though. But poor families and their behavior is the problem; gov't intervention is the solution.

While it serves your 60 year Payola-Vote-Scheme, government redistribution of income has proven to be counterproductive. Again: 1965-1980. Yeah poverty levels went down; and the poor bought plenty of heroin, whores/hustlers, and guns with that extra income. Congratulations.

TOH

if the bush tax cuts worked, the least we could expect of them is that they would deliver the revenue forecast for the out years when they were passed.

in fact, they have not (go back, for instance, to 2003, and see what the bushites were projecting for revenues).

so the bush tax cuts haven't produced the jobs growth that they promised, they haven't produced the revenue growth that they promised, they haven't produced the investment boom that they promised: indeed, all they've done is increased the line item in the budget for interest and burdened future taxpayers with the costs....

thisspaceavailable wrote: and for more perspective...Federal tax revenues FELL in 2001...AGAIN in 2002...and DOWN even more in 2003....That hasn't happened since the great depression

which may illustrate the importance of Bush's 2003 tax rate cuts. The economy (at least the part reflected in tax collected) was in a downturn comparable (in a way) to the great depression, but the problem has been corrected. It's hard to prove cause and effect in economics, but the timing sure suggests that Bush deserves a lot of credit for the turnaround.

(In all fairness, the economy was booming so much under Clinton that after 3 years of downturn it still wasn't that bad. The overall economy today is in excellent shape, but it's not as good as it was during the Clinton boom.)

i see the objective historian remains a complete clown. As a matter of fact, you fool, thanks to FICA, most Americans do pay taxes (you meant, in your ignorance, to refer to income taxes, and even then, "most" americans would be an overstatement). Indeed, if Bush were really the tax-cutter he claims, and if he really believes, as he says, that the IOUS from the general fund to the social security trust fund are worthless, he would have cut the "surplus" out of FICA taxes, which, all other things being equal, would have made the deficit "look" (since it is, for anyone who cares to pay attention) roughly $150B/year worse.

Your other 4 paragraphs are even stupider, hard as it is to believe (well, wait, we're dealing with the objective historian: it's not hard to believe at all).

ex-liberal, let's repeat: the bush administration set its own metrics for what the tax cut of 2003 would achieve. it failed to achieve them. period.

what has helped the economy, as gregory alluded to above, are: a.) historically low interest rates; b.) good old-fashioned keynesian stimulus brought about by the fact that we have "borrow and spend" republicans running the show.

Meanwhile, you liking the $400B and rising annual interest payments on the national debt? great line item in the budget, isn't it?

UNION SQUARE PARK ON A SUMMER AFTERNOON:

If you want to understand the on-going failure of wealth to redistribute evenly in the USA, spend a summer afternoon in Union Square Park in New York City and conceptualize how different that same afternoon was in 1956 (50 years ago). People behaved then; and when the did not behave it was at the end of the work day, not sunrise to sunrise. How and why the cultural change? Well, you see, what happened after the 1950s was . . . Regressive-Democrats and the 60s party on the government's dime culture. "A rolling stone gather's no moss"; it also gathers no income.

To paraphrase James Carville: It's the sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll (anti-income producing career culture) stupid.

TOH

Republican sock-puppet The Objective Historian regurgitated: No one receives more for contributing less to government than the poorest and no one receives less for what it contributes than the rich.

The sad truth is that no one receives more for contributing less to government than the "self-reliant conservative" citizens of Bush-supporting "Red States", who receive more in funds from the Federal government than they pay in Federal taxes, and no once receives less for what they contribute than the "liberal" citizens of Gore- or Kerry-supporting
"Blue States", who pay more in Federal taxes than they receive back in funding from the Federal goverment.

The sad truth is that Federal taxes paid by liberals support conservatives. Liberals are hard-working, productive, and generous. Conservatives are lazy, stingy leeches, sucking off the Federal tit, whining about "nanny government" all the while.

I'd just like to thank "ex-liberal" for providing -- as if on cue! -- such a sterling example of the kind of dishonesty I was talking about.

But then, "ex-liberal" can be relied upon to provide dishonest Republican (but I repeat myself) talking points.

DOPE:

I WROTE:

Most Americans pay little taxes or no taxes or are net tax beneficiaries via welfare, etc.

I DID NOT WRITE MOST AMERICANS PAY NO TAXES; JUST LIKE YOUR ANALYSIS OF BUSH II, YOU ARE DELUDED BY WISHFUL THING AND ARE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. CLOWN.

TSSSSS.

TOH

what has helped the economy, as gregory alluded to above, are: a.) historically low interest rates; b.) good old-fashioned keynesian stimulus brought about by the fact that we have "borrow and spend" republicans running the show.

And, howard, it's worth repeating that the first part of that equation is becoming less and less of a factor. Factor in historically high fuel costs, and it's no wonder the Dow can't quite manage to stay above 11,000.

The Sad Truth:

Er, uh, who in those Blue States pays those taxes? That's who is rooked the worst in the USA; the young Wall Streeter, lawyer, banker, consultant, whose done everything right in their lives and is bled by the civil service, teacher union, welfare queen, derelicts and criminals who move to Blue States like vampire bats.

Oh, sorry to disturb your image of the "selfish" Wall Street yuppy.

TOH

objective historian's 3:57 continues his string of complete nonsense.

as for his 3:59, yes sweetie, i did read "little or no" and it's wrong. most americans pay in the neighborhood of 18% of their household income in income, FICA, state, and local taxes. if you were limiting your assessment to income taxes, then you'd be, just as i said, in the neighborhood of accuracy, although "little" isn't really accurate if you do what normal people do and think in terms of percentage of income....

TOH does the best parody of right wing talking points that I've ever seen. LOL!

The Objective Historian wrote: ... bled by the civil service, teacher union, welfare queen, derelicts and criminals ...

The sad truth is that you are a stupid, ignorant bigot regurgitating mindless right-wing slogans, and you imagine that you are offering intelligent analysis.

It's no wonder that conservatives have to leech off the government to survive.

TOH wrote: ... But poor families and their behavior is the problem ...

The sad truth is that stupid, ignorant, right-wing bigots like you are the problem.

and at 4:03, objective historian continues to demonstrate his complete inability to say anything that isn't blithering nonsense.

gregory, that's right: we're at the end of the historically low interest rates era, and as that ripples through credit card balances, home equity lines of credit, and ARMs, while at the same time energy costs are going up, health-care coverage is declining (we're down to under 60% of american workers being covered, from 65% in 2001) and out-of-pockets increasing, and real wages going nowhere, the prospects for the economy look bleaker, which the market recognizes, even if the objective historian doesn't....

Joel, you raise a good point: here i'd been assuming that the objective historian was serious, but in fact, perhaps he is one of these new-fangled performance artists!

"performance artists"

Exactly. A digital Ann Coulter.

The Objectionalbe Histrionic: Er, uh, who in those Blue States pays those taxes? That's who is rooked the worst in the USA; the young Wall Streeter, lawyer, banker, consultant, whose done everything right in their lives and is bled by the civil service, teacher union, welfare queen, derelicts and criminals who move to Blue States like vampire bats.

Er, speaking as a young Wall Street lawyer, I hardly consider myself "rooked" by teachers, firefighters, cops or nurses. While I pay (relatively) high taxes (though not high when compared to other industrial democracies) I also earn a high salary, and I get a fair number of services in exchange for those taxes (for example, knowing that the cops and the firefighters are going to be there to pull me out of the rubble if a bomb hits my building).

NEWS, FOOLS:

IF YOU DIVIDE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL BUDGETS PER CAPITA, AMERICANS - BEFORE SPECIFIC WELFARE BENEFITS - AMERICANS EACH GET $20,000. SO A FAMILY OF FOUR GETS $80,000. HMMM . . . HOW MANY FAMILY OF FOUR'S PAY $80,000 IN TAXES? HOW MANY PAY $20,000? 10,000? THE POOR AND MIDDLE INCOME ARE FREE-RIDING ON THE RICH; MORESO NOW THAN EVER!

YOU ARE IDIOTS; THE HARD WORKING TAXPAYERS ARE MAKING MONEY BECAUSE THEY ARE EARNING MONEY BY WORKING DURING THEIR YOUTHS (NOT ON THEIR GLUE SNIFFING SKILLS OR THEIR TANS OR THEIR VARIOUS HUMAN ORIFICE PENETRATION TECHNIQUE/COUNT). AND, LIKE SUPERMAN, THEY ARE CARRYING THE VAST SLOB-CULTURE, HIPSTER-DOOFUS-GANSTA-ADDICTS-GOV'T PAYROLL BLOOD SUCKERS IN AMERICA ON THEIR BACK, TOO.

HOORAY FOR THE AMERICAN RICH; HEROES, THANKLESS HEROES AND PARAGONS OF VIRTUE (CUMULATIVELY AND STATSTICALLY, ANECDOTES ASIDE); THESE INGRATES DON'T DESERVE SUCH MERCY, BUT YET THE AMERICAN WELATHY TAXPAYER'S MERCY (IN THE FORM OF TAX DOLLARS) POURS DOWN UPON THEM LIKE RAIN.

TOH

HOORAY FOR THE AMERICAN RICH; HEROES, THANKLESS HEROES AND PARAGONS OF VIRTUE (CUMULATIVELY AND STATSTICALLY, ANECDOTES ASIDE); THESE INGRATES DON'T DESERVE SUCH MERCY, BUT YET THE AMERICAN WELATHY TAXPAYER'S MERCY (IN THE FORM OF TAX DOLLARS) POURS DOWN UPON THEM LIKE RAIN.

Hey, according to The Objectionable Histrionic I'm a hero, a thankless hero! Not to mention a paragon of virtue, both cumulatively and statistically! Hooray for me!

TOH:

You do realize, I hope, that by all accounts Ayn Rand was lousy in bed?

Bob

Stefan:

Well, you're quietly heroic (to me, anyway) for not following your strict socioeconomic class interest with your politics :)

Bob

Y'know, the (ha,ha) Objective Historian is so much more convincing when he/she/it puts on the Caps Lock key...

His/her/its style reminds me of a slightly more coherent and (barely) less frothing version of keiser/Alice. I guess the meds must have kicked in -- after a fashion.

Gregory:

It's the opulently Randian contempt that gives me a woodie for this dude's writing style ...

Bob

Is The Objective Historian the person who used to post as Alice? Alice used to go all caps when she was pissed too, and apparently got data from the same place.

Stefan: bless you!

objective historian: of the many stupid arguments that you've posted today, your 4:19 is so inane that i'm now convinced that Joel is right - you are a performance artist, set out to make today's right wing look even dumber than it appears.

speaking as part of a household of 3, i'm wondering where my share of highways, weapons, farm subsidies, and similar government expenditures is? where's my piece of the secret service, watching my child? for that matter, where's my piece of the interest on the national debt?

Maybe if I continue to use homo-ish metaphors about the way the guy writes, he'll get skeeved and go away.

One can always hope ...

Bob

Stefan:

You have a good attitude; SEE FOLKS, THE WALL STREETERS ARE THE HEROES.

You should hear what these Regressive-Democrats think of you, merely for being a Wall Streeter on campuses like, um, Colorado(Ward Churchill), City College of New York. To them, your fellow Blue State malcontents especially, you are the villian despite what I predict is a nobly led life.

I'm on your side champ! You deserve more respect manifested not by "thank yous" but by law abiding, homework doing, procreatively responsible, sober living on the part of the recipients of your generosity, esp. the welfare poor (and dedication the teachers, cops, and firemen you mention). Instead, those who benefit the most are disproportionately drugged, debauched, and criminal.

Side Note: I'm for paying civil servants more, but ending civil service unions right to fix prices in restraint of trade (the sine qua non of a union is it's monopoly power). Pay 'em all more, if appropriate, but have the right to fire 'em in an instant. They'll have the same risk of employment injustice as you do, Wall Streeter. That is life and kids, crime victims, and fire victims deserve to have a civil service force where the err is toward firing people unfairly than keeping people on for 20 years negligently.

TOH

Gregory,

I see you beat me to it. Great minds think faster than slow minds.

the wsj has featured some excellent reportage lately on the scandal of back-dated options transferring shareholder wealth to corporate insiders: i had no idea how easy it was to be considered a paragon of virtue these days!

It's the opulently Randian contempt that gives me a woodie for this dude's writing style ...

At least TOH's writing style isn't as turgid as Rand's. ;)

Howard:

I can tell you where your share is not: it's not in the copy of Mein Kampf required to be on your desk at all times.

TOH

PS If there is more to your share, I'm sure a public school teacher just gave it to one of his students for fellating services this week. Why not? The penalty is to stay at home for 6 years of arbitration at full pay.

TOH:

The perception of irony is obviously not one of your stronger suits, huh.

Bob

Rand Shrugs.

TOH

hey fuckhead historian: every member of my great-grandparents generation still alive at the start of wwii was wiped out in a nazi death camp. i don't mind some give-and-take with morons, but obviously, you're benath a moron: you're a completely sick little prick who doesn't know shit from shinola. shut your trap if the best you can do is accuse me of keeping a copy of Mein Kampf on my desk at all times.

fuck you. sincerely.

Gregory:

Then again, what if this guy's a would-be novelist when he's not busy terrorizing lefties on blogs?

I think he'd give ol' Ayn a serious run for her money if he had *that* kind of space to rant.

"Would you edit The Bible?"

:)

Bob

THE HARD WORKING TAXPAYERS ARE MAKING MONEY BECAUSE THEY ARE EARNING MONEY BY WORKING DURING THEIR YOUTHS (NOT ON THEIR GLUE SNIFFING SKILLS OR THEIR TANS OR THEIR VARIOUS HUMAN ORIFICE PENETRATION TECHNIQUE/COUNT).

Paris Hilton ?

Shaquille O'Neil ?

Do you think the Walton's would all be billionaires if their father hadn't been wealthy ?

HOWARD:

"speaking as part of a household of 3, i'm wondering where my share of highways, weapons, farm subsidies, and similar government expenditures is? where's my piece of the secret service, watching my child? for that matter, where's my piece of the interest on the national debt?"

HOWARD, WHAT IS YOUR AVERAGE TAX BILL THESE LAST 5 YEARS? I BET IT'S NOT $60,000.

Let's see if you have any guts to a speak truly.

Howard, you don't have a share - get it; you are free riding on other peoples tax dollars, taking their share. It's after the hard working high income people pay to care for Howie and his 2 children that they pay for highways, secret service, etc. You are a parasite and you've bred parasites.

TOH

And let me stand in solidarity with howard on that one.

Affirming Godwin's Law has its time and place, I suppose, but sometimes it is nothing but an excuse for the purest ugliness.

Bob

Boy, I've rarely felt so strongly about rounding up a posse of my fellow commenters and going to a troll's house to kick his ass irl.

I wonder how much this sentiment is starting to be shared ...

Bo

"IF YOU DIVIDE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL BUDGETS PER CAPITA . . . "

You get what?

To the extent that there's anything meaningful to that figure, the number reflects, in part, the freeloading of this generation on the next, because the Bush budget deficit is not being paid off by any of today's taxpayers. And tomorrows taxpayers--not you, you freeloader--will be paying the interest to China.

Moron.

Gregory wrote: I'd just like to thank "ex-liberal" for providing -- as if on cue! -- such a sterling example of the kind of dishonesty I was talking about.

I guess Gregory means that the turnaround in the economy starting in 2003 wasn't due to Bush's tax cuts, but to rising house prices, low interest rates, etc. As I said, it's hard to be certain of cause and effect, but the timing is suggestive. Note that interest rates were low and real estate was rising in 2000 - 2003, but the economy was going South.

BTW one cause for the rise in real estate prices was the great economy. E.g., in Silicon Valley, where I live, housing prices exploded because many residents were earning a lot of money, such as bonuses to Google employees, etc. Of course, Gregory is correct that the rising house prices in turn helped the economy.

One thing is for sure -- Bush can't be blamed for the slowdown in 2000 - 03, because his tax reform package wasn't in effect. I wouldn't blame Bill Clinton for that slowdown, either. It was just the natural comedown from a super booming economy IMHO.

The Waltons are all college graduates, I believe; and throw in estate taxes and the wealthy are really carrying the rest.

What is the problem, really? The distribution of income problems (and I agree it's a problem) is a distribution of education and virtue problem. Poor people, especially in cities, are studying RELATIVELY LESS and participating in self-destructive vice RELATIVELY MORE now than ever. Of course, the distribution of wealth is going to become more skewed. And the Regressive-Democrat solution; give people money. How that causes them to do their homework or not do drugs, etc. is irrelevant to the deluded Regressive-Democrat. In fact, it does not occur to the Regressive-Democrat that housing virtue-challenged poor in cities, bastions of vice, and providing them with unconditioned resources might make it worse. Why? They are too busy congratulating each other on their erudition and utopia plans to worry about . . . what is actually happening.

TOH

Wow, this TOH guy is amazing. Hits all those metrics of being an online nutcase.

First to go to all CAPS? Check.

First to go to the unwarranted Nazi cheap shot? Check?

etc. And of course all those non sequitors. i.e. two unrelated facts that are strung together in a seemingly cause and effect relationship which actually aren't logically connected.

Because this guy's the absolute champ at spouting lots of unconnected facts as if they show causality, but actually don't make any logical sense.

May we ask nicely - can you please go away? Thank you.

Which, BTW - nice video of our great leader today, eh? Anyone else feel appropriately inspired? Or just scared to death?

"The distribution of income problems (and I agree it's a problem) is a distribution of education and virtue problem."

Absurdist bafflegab. Not an atom of evidence to support this assertion.

TOH--absurdist performance-artist troll.

HOWARD, WHAT IS YOUR AVERAGE TAX BILL THESE LAST 5 YEARS? I BET IT'S NOT $60,000.

How many US soldiers pay that kind of money in taxes ?

How many firemen or police officers pay an average of twenty grand per family member ?

How many preachers make that kind of money ?

How about families where one parent stays at home with the kids rather than work ?

Is a school teacher a "parasite" ?

Er, uh, Joel,

The budget deficit is like 3% of GDP and that is in a historic low interest rate environment, i.e., a relatively good time to borrow for say, a War to enforce a treaty against our recent enemy Iraq (i.e., a Just War, but that is for another threat).

You're kidding yourself. The present generation is not parasitic (or it is only slightly so). It's the bottom 70% of the income earning families who are parasitic. They are just too self absorbed, ungrateful, and media-deluded to realize it; or maybe their busy having even more children their incomes won't manage well and their tax payments don't cover.

I read a NYTimes article last month about the "unfair" Bush tax cuts that favored the rich; it's like the "journalist" was doing contortions to write around any mention of actual taxes paid across the income spectrum. Truth to power? You Regressive-Democrats are afraid of the truth. Look how Howard Dean since his tenure began REFUSES TO DEBATE KEVIN MEHLMAN ONE-TO-ONE. He's loud and deceitful by himself. But the thought of confronting the opponent and the whole truth: FEAR!

But, back to the NYTimes; that was the power of the old MSM; the power to confuse and manipulate. Regressive-Democrats; those days of Regressive-Democrat control of the media are over:

WE'RE HEEEERRRRREEEE.

TOH

TOH:

Your argument there is at least a decade out-of-date.

Clinton passed welfare reform. There's not a liberal I know of who supports open-ended, unconditional welfare payments for the able-bodied and reasonably non-insane. It's a dead issue, at least among Democrats. Even guys like Sharpton and Kucinich don't talk about it.

What's causing all the cultural decadence, TOH?

Consumerism. The identification of people with things.

Try sticking that jinni back in the bottle and you'll stuff free market economics right back in there with it :)

Bob

Stephan:

Why don't you start a private charity to subsidize teacher, cop, and fireman income and see how you make out? Hah. I can picture the Democratic Party of all income levels, rich and poor, running for the hills. Soros, Streisand, Sarandon not to mention your fellow rich limosine liberal blowhards; once they get to those hills, they'll crawl under a rock. Hypocrites. At least it will be the last we hear from you.

TOH

ex-liberal, i don't really understand your terms of reference. q4 2000 was a negative growth quarter; q1 2001 was a positive growth quarter; q2 and q3 2001 were negative growth quarters (and hence met the definition of a recession); and from q4, 2001, we've been a growing economy.

you're right that in the ecology of capitalism, recessions are a natural element; i don't blame clinton for the recession, and i don't blame bush.

i do, however, blame bush for his policy response to the recession, but on top of that, surely, ex-liberal, you haven't forgotten that bush came to office and pushed through a tax cut immediately.

in short, i don't know how you call 2000-2003 a "slowdown," and i don't know how you can say that bush's tax policies (to call them "reform" is really gilding the lily) not being in "effect."

rmck1, samuel knight, much obliged: i'm just going to ignore the blithering idiocy of the fuckhead historian and leave its evisceration in the capable hands of gregory, joel, and you two. he's too despicable an asswipe for me to deal with any further.

The Objectionable Histrionic: I'm on your side champ!

No, you're really not....

To them, your fellow Blue State malcontents especially, you are the villian despite what I predict is a nobly led life.

"Nobly led"? You should see what I do after I leave the office. It's amazing the, uh, entertainment options one has here in New York....

TOH: Alice II. Shouting the talking points.

STEPHAN:

AFTER YOU LEAVE THE OFFICE!

You've made my point for me; the poor (not the teachers, firemen, and cops - but too often their children) are partying (sex, drugs, corner-time) instead of studying. That's proved out by statistics. They are not having fun at the end of the day, but all day. And they hold Wall Streeters in contempt with every blunt toke.

TOH

Joel:

The unemployed, single parent household; drug abuse; education numbers speak for themselves. The evidence is overwhelming.

TOH

I'm sure TOH is practicing his parodying of Ignatius J. Reilly. Once he moves out of his mother's basement and finds himself his Myrna Minkoff, I'm sure he'll get straightened out. 'Til then we'll just have to hope his meds can tide him over.

"The budget deficit is like 3% of GDP . . ."

And the national debt? Our children pay interest on the total debt, bozo, not just on the annual deficit. You are a freeloader.

" . . . and that is in a historic low interest rate environment,"

The federal fund rate now stands at 5.25%, the highest level in more than five years.

Moron.

TOH/Alice,

One criteria for being objective is sticking to the facts. You've made a lot of statements. Some of them seem a bit, well, made up. Perhaps you can demonstrate your objectivity by providing citations (perhaps a nice weblink?) from reputable sources.

TOH:

If you knew anything at all about street culture (not to mention more academic studies of emulative behavior) you'd realize that gangstas are all about bling, materialism and show-me-the-money.

Only they have an ethics deficit. Otherwise, Wall Streeters are just more phat rich people to watch on TV and copy the moves of.

An ethics deficit.

You know, like Michael Milken and Kenneth Lay.

Bob

Ah, the deliberately inaccurate paraphrase -- where would the dihonest Bush apologists -- but again, I repeat myself -- be without it?

"ex-liberal" wrote: I guess Gregory means that the turnaround in the economy starting in 2003 wasn't due to Bush's tax cuts, but to rising house prices, low interest rates, etc.

Gregory meant just what he said: If you were honest, you have acknowledged that there was more affecting the economy than Bush tax cuts. You didn't (at least until called on it).

And when you did acknowledge the housing market, it was dishonestly again: BTW one cause for the rise in real estate prices was the great economy.

"One cause," perhaps, but you're ignoring -- deliberately? Perish forbid! -- the fact that historically low interest rates allowed people to convert equity into liquidity by refinancing without entering the housing market. And, of course, the ease of other kinds of consumer debt enabled by the Greenspan keeping the monetary pedal to the medal is, again, arguably a much greater -- and unarguably a more widespread among income groups -- explanation for the "great economy" you cite.

One thing is for sure -- Bush can't be blamed for the slowdown in 2000 - 03, because his tax reform package wasn't in effect.

Sure he can. Bush's irresponsible tax cuts are hardly the only effect the President's policies have on the economy. Just as one offhand example, one could argue that the fact that Bush failed to take any action at all in response to the August 6 PDB makes him responsible for the post-9/11 economic slowdown.

Bottom line, "ex-liberal": You have no factual basis on which to hang your claim that Bush's tax cuts were responsible for whatever tepid "boom" you'd like to believe the economy enjoyed (and, of course, it's already been pointed out how Bush's tax cuts failed by Bush's own criteria). So you substitute dishonesty piled on dishonesty, supported only by weak anecdotal evidence and half-baked logic.

HOWARD WITH 3 IN THE HOUSEHOLD. WHAT DO YOU PAY IN TAXES EACH YEAR?

HOWARD, I REGRET YOUR RELATIVES DIED.

BUT, YOUR RELATIVES DIED BECAUSE FDR APPEASED HITLER WHEN HE VIOLATED THE TREATIES ENDING THE PREVIOUS CONFLICT, WWI. BUSH II TO HIS CREDIT RESISTED THIS TEMPTATION; THE EASY WAY OUT, BUT THE WRONG WAY. BUT, REMEMBERING YOUR PAST POSTS, I GUESS YOUR RELATIVES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN KURDS, SO YOU DISCOUNT THIS.

TOH

"The unemployed, single parent household; drug abuse; education numbers speak for themselves. The evidence is overwhelming."

There is no evidence that the growing income gap in America is explained by single parent households, drug abuse, or drop in education. Simply saying that the evidence is overwhelming is not evidence.

Moron.

If the rich bitch so much about the progressive tax code, why aren't they all hot for a flat tax rate? Maybe they don't pay as much as they say they do. I've found that the term trickle-down refers more to a bodily function that wealthy folks(?) perform off their penthouse balconys than an actual economic term. Reaganomics failed big time!Eat the rich!!!

Thw White House isn't even confident in the revenue producing powers of tax cuts. The final deficit figure for 2005 was $318b. In February, the WH said the deficit for this year would be $423b.

Um ...

Now that the figure is $296b, the WH makes it sound like it knew all along this would happen.

So, did the WH fudge the February number? Forget about the purported effect of tax cuts?

What explains this five-month swing in confidence about tax cuts?

Howard wrote: i do, however, blame bush for his policy response to the recession, but on top of that, surely, ex-liberal, you haven't forgotten that bush came to office and pushed through a tax cut immediately.

My memory is that Bush's tax cuts were enacted during 2001 and came into effect on a graduated basis. IIRC the largest portion of the rate cut was not effective until 2003.

rmck1:

Thanks for the support. Poor people are consumed with a greed while rich people are dedicated to virtue and income is derivative of that. You're right, the behavior of poor people is the cause of poverty.

Thanks.

TOH

The evidence is overwhelming.

Then it's high time you started citing some, TOH, and not just asserting it.

Put up or shut up.

TOH writes:

While it serves your 60 year Payola-Vote-Scheme, government redistribution of income has proven to be counterproductive. Again: 1965-1980. Yeah poverty levels went down; and the poor bought plenty of heroin, whores/hustlers, and guns with that extra income. Congratulations.

This comment is fascinating to me for several reasons, not the least of which is that it seems to function like a rohrschach blot to examine the TOH's unconscious. Not surprisingly, his innermost fantasies seem to be concerned with intrusive thoughts of heroin, whores/hustlers, and guns. What a sick dude!

"Poor people are consumed with a greed while rich people are dedicated to virtue and income is derivative of that.

Well, as a member of a household in the top 5% of income, all I can say is BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What a load of crap, TOH.

Moron.

I don't understand - if tax cuts are the answer, why do we need to cut spending? We can afford a larger government by constant tax cuts. Health care for everyone. Guns and butter. More bridges to nowhere. We can afford them, just keep cutting taxes.

ex-liberal, your memory isn't quite right. the original bush tax cut was 2001, and while it incorporated provisions that haven't yet come into effect, a large amount of it did come right into play.

then there was the 2003 tax cut, specifically billed as the one that would create 5.5M new jobs between july 1, 2003 and december 31, 2004. we just made it to those 5.5M new jobs, a mere 18 months later!

more important, as i noted up above, the fact is, the tax cuts haven't produced, in general, what bush said they would, in both 2001 and 2003.

fuckhead historian, let me be perfectly clear: i'm not interested in your being sorry about my family, because i don't really care what an asswipe like you thinks.

TOH:

"Support"? You delusional turd. I've been mocking and barbing you the entire thread.

My point was that rotten ethics is a human problem hardly confined to any particular income group.

But then again, why should I expect you to have any critical reading -- let alone thinking -- skills.

After all, look where the bullshit you spout comes from :)

Bob

Gregory wrote: Gregory meant just what he said: If you were honest, you have acknowledged that there was more affecting the economy than Bush tax cuts. You didn't (at least until called on it).

My original post implicitly acknowledged such uncertainty, when I wrote "It's hard to prove cause and effect in economics, but the timing sure suggests that Bush deserves a lot of credit for the turnaround." Note that I said the data was merely suggestive, not conclusive.

That's a great point Kevin. That's also a good reason why the best policy is to make the rich have more money. This leads to greater tax revenue than if the poor have more money as you pointed out. The greater tax revenue is then used to finance tax cuts for the wealthy who then use that money to invest in their companies. The investment results in greater economic growth, more jobs, and lower employment. So making the rich richer helps everyone, including the poor and the middle class because of the new jobs.

AL stop eating the paste dude, no one knows what the hell you are frothing about.

Lets say Al, I make min wage, thats legalized poverty, and then say,, I go buy a lottery ticket and win 10 million dollars.
According to AL I should make the rich people take my money so they will be richer and I will be better off.

But AL, doesn't that put me right back where I started?

The Objective Historian wrote: WE'RE HEEEERRRRREEEE.

You say that like it's news.

The sad truth is that people like you -- stupid, ignorant bigots spewing nonsensical garbage, racist stereotypes, and malicious lies -- have always been "here".

TOH wrote: It's the bottom 70% of the income earning families who are parasitic.

I hope you are sharing your ideas with the Republican National Committee, because that would be a really terrific platform for them to campaign on in 2006 and 2008: "The bottom 70% of income earning families are parasites!"

Admit it AL your just a greedy, lying, self-serving protectionist bastard who puts money before man.

Guess what AL, money does not make the man, money makes dickweeds such as yourself it creates Abramoffs, Cunninghams and Lays, prostitutes, 'snow' jobs, cronyism and corruption.

I don't want your money AL, because then I would be like you and then I would hate myself.

Good day AL and enjoy Hell

Joel:

"There is no evidence that the growing income gap in America is explained by single parent households, drug abuse, or drop in education. Simply saying that the evidence is overwhelming is not evidence."

There is no way to prove Bush II or capitalism or anything else explains the growing income gap either.

But statistics show income and education are more than merely correlated, with income rising exponentially with education level.

Single parent homes are poorer than double parent homes; thus any argument for more welfare must also blame single parent homes for socio-economic problems.

And that drug abuse hinders earning potential is self-evident. It's called abuse for a reason.

Your kidding yourself if you don't accept this; you can argue with their relative effect, but it's absured to question their absolute effect.

Granted; the rich are getting richer; the poor and middle income earners AFTER-TAXES are getting richer, too, but not as fast. (Note: Wage data does not speak to individual household lifetime income increases but to rather to static societal economic layers so it is not in any way statistical evidence of household income stagnation. Ex: A person starting at Starbucks, AGAIN AFTER TAXES, might not be making much more in real terms, but that does not mean someone starting at Starbucks 5 years ago is not.) But if you want this to change, harang students, particularly poor students; not rich people. Poor students are causing the skew in income distribution. Their poverty should motivate them; but unfortunately, just as the staples of life are now far more affordable to the poor, so are the vices of life. Poverty does not motivate; nor does it inhibit: education, career or debauchery, narcolepsy. And the poor are choosing the latter more and more; hence the skew in incomes.

TOH

TOH

And that drug abuse hinders earning potential is self-evident. It's called abuse for a reason. TOH

Rush Limbaugh would disagree with that.

In terms of budget outlay, local, state, and federal, if a family of 4 in America is not paying $80,000 in taxes, they are being cared for by some hard working man or woman who may also have a family to whatever degree they are paying less than that.

Can you imagine? People who more than merely pay no taxes but also get welfare benefits and public housing and public education (again, without contributing) are actually complaining about cheated by capitalism. Sheeeeesh. Regressive-Democrats at their most ungrateful and assinine.

TOH

And that drug abuse hinders earning potential is self-evident. It's called abuse for a reason.

Ollie North says your full of crap.
So does Noelle Bush.

Cool Breeze:

Good example of why Regressive-Democrat policies always wind up devastating America, particularly the poor. They take a self-serving anecdote and create policy around it (the virtue par excellence Harlem violin prodigy paradigm). Statistically and cummulatively, drug abuse is a scorge upon this nation, ruining lives and families and hobbling our economy - oh, and skewing the income distribution. That you don't get it and blame the GOP or capitalism is why Regressive-Democrats are incompetent to govern; their skill is in Payola-Politics; they are as fit for the White House as Boss Tweed.

TOH

Can you imagine? People who more than merely pay no taxes but also get welfare benefits and public housing and public education (again, without contributing)

Can you imagine? People who more than merely pay no taxes but get their country bombed by multi-million dollar missiles we paid for?
(again without contributing)
Who do those poor desert dwellers think they are taking billion if not trillions of OUR MONEY!!!

TOH/Alice,

You continue making assertions without once providing any link or citation. By now even you must suspect most of think what you are saying is all made up.

Good example of why Regressive-Democrat policies always wind up devastating America, particularly the poor.

Good example of your brain dead gibberish.

Conservatism is regression. IE; Reconstructionists. The Neo-cons, the Fundies, the unitary executive, the goddamn piece of paper..It's the goopers that want to devastate America.

Howard:

You're weak-minded; I can tell by your views and the vocabulary you use to express them. I can see why the Regressive-Democrat maniuplations have hypnotized you.

Wait, here comes another signal: Howard, Howard, find traffic, Howard, jump into it.

TOH

Newt Gingrich and his 'conference of states'
Newt the Devastator.

TOH--family of 4 gets $80,000 in govt spending. . .

1. Families with kids are ripping off families without, especially old folks, as education expenditures account for most propety tax payments.
2. Old folks are ripping off young thru social security.
3. Everyone who pays ANY federal income tax is getting ripped off by the military. (I personally favor voluntary contributions to finance this part of federal spending--sort of like campaign finance works now).
4. Etc.

I could go on. The whole system of taxation is filled with redistributions, which automatically create inequities. So what? Congress rearranges it every year but it will always be with us. (Unless Grover Norquist gets his way, which looks less likely now than when W first came into power.)

This is worth repeating:

The Objective Historian wrote:

"It's the bottom 70% of the income earning families who are parasitic."

Again, according to The Objective Historian,

SEVENTY PERCENT OF AMERICA'S INCOME-EARNING FAMILIES ARE PARASITES !!!

When Republicans run for office on slogans like that, it's no wonder that Democrats can never win elections!

Telling all those soccer moms, NASCAR dads, two-job households, and single parents working two jobs just to pay for rent and food that THEY ARE PARASITES -- how can the Democrats hope to compete with a message like that!

The sad truth is, Karl Rove has got nothing on this guy! The RNC needs to hire him right away, and ensure that the entire focus of the Republican campaign for 2006 and 2008 is TOH's message:

SEVENTY PERCENT OF AMERICA'S INCOME-EARNING FAMILIES ARE PARASITES !!!

You caught me:

Little or no income single parent families; drug abuse; and no education do not correlate to lower incomes because . . . well . . . because I have not provided a link.

But that being the case; let's not discourage any of them. Shall we call that the Regressive-Democrat platform for '06 and '08.

ILLEGITIMACY, HEROIN, AND NO REQUIREMENTS THAT CHILDREN ATTEND SCHOOLS.

Go with it; you can put a civil liberties spin on it; it has to work better than any thing you Regressive-Democrats have tried since '76 and that uber-incompetent, Regressive-Democrat, deluded, self-absorbed, America-imploding pinhead won the Presidency.

TOH

You're weak-minded; I can tell by your views and the vocabulary you use to express them. I can see why the Regressive-Democrat maniuplations have hypnotized you.
Another paste eating pedantic.

I am not a democrat amazing kreskin.

Maybe if you quit projecting your crap on other people??

Cool Breeze:

I should have put the addressee; I was referring to Howard above. If you scroll up, you'll see what epithets he used in reference to me. Howard is a true moron who I've destroyed here. Howard: how much do you and your two fellow traveler parasites pay in taxes?

You, Cool Breeze, are anecdotal-myopic, inter alia.

TOH

TOH, you can't read, can you?

I didn't say that drug abuse, single parent families and low education levels don't correlate with low income. I said that there is no evidence that growth in drug abuse, single parent families, and drops in education levels explain the increasing income gap in America. The reason there is no evidence to support your argument is because your argument is specious.

Moron.

Cool Breeze wrote: Maybe if you quit projecting your crap on other people??

Please, don't discourage The Objective Historian from "projecting his crap."

On the contrary, encourage him to publish his message far and wide, and most especially this part of his message, which hopefully will be announced soon as the cornerstone of the 2006 and 2008 Republican Party Platform:

"SEVENTY PERCENT OF AMERICA'S INCOME-EARNING FAMILIES ARE PARASITES!!!"
-- The Objective Historian, 7/17/2006

The sad truth is, that's what the leaders of The Republican Party of George W. Bush really believe (although, granted, some of them believe that the bottom 99% of America's income-earning families, and in general anyone whose income comes exclusively from wages earned through labor, are parasites, leeching off the top 1%).

And that's the message that America needs to hear from the Republicans, loud and clear:

"SEVENTY PERCENT OF AMERICA'S INCOME-EARNING FAMILIES ARE PARASITES!!!"
-- The Objective Historian, 7/17/2006

REGRESSIVE-DEMOCRATS:

In typical fashion, it's not the truth you are concerned with, but how stating it might hurt your opponents. See, you hope that their parasitism will hurt the GOP. It's very weird. And, it does not occur to you that their parasitism, like any unecessary crutch or narcotic, is actually weakening and undermining the poor and middle income each passing year.

You are correct, that people would be offended to be rudely made aware of their parasitism. It would shock them because they've been deluded by the MSM and the Regressive-Democrats to believe a falsehood, i.e., that they suffer from capitalism and the current tax code instead of being cared for by it. And, naturally, you Regressive-Democrats delude the poor and middle income in your pursuit of power and income you did not earn. The Democratic Party is a Payola-Vote scheme. And like all such schemes, it's invidious for the nation as 65-80 proved.

TOH

The Objective Historian wrote: Howard is a true moron who I've destroyed here.

You have conquered all! The sad truth is, I have become your greatest fan. Please keep repeating your core message, spreading it far and wide, and please do everything you can to ensure that the Republican Party makes it the foundation of their outreach to voters this fall, and in 2008:

"SEVENTY PERCENT OF AMERICA'S INCOME-EARNING FAMILIES ARE PARASITES!!!"
-- The Objective Historian, 7/17/2006

That's the message that America needs to hear from the Republicans! Go TOH! Go TOH!! Go TOH!!!

TOH/Alice,

You're still making statements but not providing any citations.

JOEL:

Re-read your last post; it's uber-idiotic. So "[you] didn't say that drug abuse, single parent families and low education levels don't correlate with low income", but it just would be a mistake to believe that increases in these activities on the part of those with lower incomes causes more skewed distribution of wealth.

If people are doing more of this and making less income because of it and other people are doing less of them and making more because of that, QED, these are causing a greater skewing of the distribution of wealth. Look at education alone; that is definitely causing the skewing of wealth.

I can tell you why education, drugs, and irresponsible procreation are hurting poor Americans mostly. It is because American ditch diggers are not better or worth more in the marketplace than Bangladeshi ditch diggers. So, American ditch diggers better stop desperately seeking and depending onf government protections that will always prove soporific, short-term beneficial, and as counter-productive as they are sustaining; and instead, American ditch diggers (and Starbucks servers, etc.) - HIT THE BOOKS, SOBER UP, AND KEEP YOUR PANTS ON UNTIL YOU CAN COMFORTABLY AFFORD CHILDREN!

America is a paradise for the reasonably diligent, sober, and sexually responsible. It's not that hard, historically speaking and by international standards to be autonomous and independent here (not a tax burden). If the poor would just stop being so selfish in the private lifestyle choices; stop adding to the burden they and their families are and start lessening it. It is what is best for them and for the USA.

TOH

CITATIONS; WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING CITATIONS.

Hey; I'm too lazy to provide what is well documented and wide spread in terms of the scholarship. There is no contention that illegitimacy, drugs, and poor education is the cause of poverty and income distribution skewing. The debate is over why the three exist and what to do about it. If you want to pretend these are not the cause, fine.

My proof is 65-80 and all Regressive-Democrats policies; they always implode, taking the poor down with them, because quite the opposite of lessening such, they enable illegitimacy, drug abuse, and alternative lifestyles (i.e., not having a job-job). That is why every where Regressive-Democrats go, nationally, state-wide, locally, they bring misery and devastation leaving places like the South Bronx looking like socio-economic ground zeros.

TOH

The Objective Historian wrote: America is a paradise for the reasonably diligent, sober, and sexually responsible.

The sad truth is, that America is also a paradise for the lazy ne'er-do-well drunkard and cocaine-abuser who knocks up his girlfriend and forces her to have an abortion -- if, that is, his name is George W. Bush.

I think you really need to stick to your core message, and get more Republicans to join in repeating it at every opportunity:

"SEVENTY PERCENT OF AMERICA'S INCOME-EARNING FAMILIES ARE PARASITES!!!"
-- The Objective Historian, 7/17/2006

The sad truth is, those SEVENTY PERECENT OF AMERICA'S WORKING FAMILIES really need to know that Republicans think they are PARASITES.

And the sad truth is that your fellow Republicans simply don't have the courage to come right out and tell them that.

It's up to you to let those SEVENTY PERECENT OF AMERICA'S WORKING FAMILIES know where the Republicans really stand!

TOH:

Who, exactly, do you think you're debating with?

This cultural argument is pretty much over with. The boomers have been out of their adolescence a long time at this point. Some of them are two years out from retiring.

Fact is, the cultural cues which prod decadent behavior among the poor (among the more well-off, too) come from the marketplace.

Or are you going to argue that advertising hasn't discovered instant gratification?

Bob

Dang, TOH, you are are a world class moron. There is no evidence that the growth in income disparity in the US during the last six years is explained by growth in single-parent families, growth in drug usage, or drop in education. None. Simply repeating that these are factors in poverty does not explain the growth in income disparity. Repeating in capital letters doesn't either.

But for you, mind-numbing repetition is your substitute for actual thought.

Moron.

If you pursue policies that increase income inequality, then corporations and the rich will have more money.

That presumes a particular sort of growth of income equality, namely income growth.

However, the tax growth occurs faster than gdp growth because the income tax is progressive. If the tax rate was flat, tax growth would not exceed gdp growth, and could be lower.

The Sad Truth:

The sad truth is that I am right; it would indeed be a mistake for either party to upset people from their fantasies, but in fact most Americans are enjoying a free-ride, i.e., parasites. They are members of the best country club on earth, but pay no dues; in fact, vast swaths of them have free housing, food, health care, and a stipend on the grounds of this country club. And they still impugn capitalism. You're mock slogan is silly; but reversed it summarizes the Regressive-Democrat platform:

AMERICA! LET US MAKE YOU MORE PARASITIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMICALLY AND IN TERMS OF FORGEIGN POLICY DESTROY THE USA IN THE PROCESS AS PARASITES ALWAYS DO! BRING BACK THE HALCYON LATE 70s!

Er, uh, Republican hand-puppet Clinton notwithstanding, maybe reading this very apt slogan you understand why you Regressive-Democrats are forever banished to "power centers" like DailyKos.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha; I'll be thinking of you as I stroll the corridors of power with the intelligent people who rule over you like sheep.

TOH

"I'll be thinking of you as I stroll the corridors of power with the intelligent people who rule over you like sheep."

No intelligent person would want to be within miles of you, TOH. You are a buffoon.

TOH/Alice,

Since you responded to me, I'll return the favor. You said:

"That is why every where Regressive-Democrats go, nationally, state-wide, locally, they bring misery and devastation leaving places like the South Bronx looking like socio-economic ground zeros."

This implies that the states that don't elect Regressive-Democrats would be the ones that lead the country. States like, say, Alabama and Mississippi and Tennessee, with their low tax policies and strong Republican virtues... they carry the country. Regressive-Democrat states, like, say, California, New York, Taxachussetts, and so forth - they're the ones being supported by the Alabamas and Mississippis.

Maybe, just maybe, this is why you should provide citations. Not so much for us - maybe if you looked at the data to try to support what you are spewing, you might learn something. You might even become objective.

The Objective Historian wrote: You're mock slogan is silly;

The sad truth is, it is your slogan; I can only wish that I had the brilliance to think of such a perfect slogan for ALL Republican candidates to run on as the one that you posted here today:

"SEVENTY PERCENT OF AMERICA'S INCOME-EARNING FAMILIES ARE PARASITES!!!"
-- The Objective Historian, 7/17/2006

TOH wrote: I'll be thinking of you as I stroll the corridors of power with the intelligent people who rule over you like sheep.

I hope that these intelligent people know the difference between the contraction You're for "you are" and the possessive Your and can teach it to you.

TOH, as Kevin said at the top, we're laughing at you, not with you.

Moron.

TOH wrote: "I'll be thinking of you as I stroll the corridors of power with the intelligent people who rule over you like sheep."

Joel replied: "No intelligent person would want to be within miles of you, TOH. You are a buffoon."

The sad truth is, that while the members of the tiny, ultra-rich hereditary corporate elite that does, in fact, "rule over" America are not particularly intelligent, they do share TOH's worldview. And "strolling the corridors" is about as close as any of them ever get to real work.

Point taken, TST, but TOH is not striding corridors of power, with or without intelligent people. He, in fact, is one of the sheep, to judge from his endless bleating of outdated repub talking points.

The Sad Truth:

You're SecularAnimist, aren't you?

I could tell by the phrase "hereditary corporate elite." That's always been a favorite of Secular's :)

Don't hate me too much for blowing your cover, dude ...

Bob

rmck1 wrote: I could tell by the phrase "hereditary corporate elite." That's always been a favorite of Secular's :)

The sad truth is, it's a favorite of mine as well.

rmck1: You're SecularAnimist, aren't you?

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

The Sad Truth:

I'll take that as an admission then -- since parsing the meaning of "is" pretty much signaled to the world that Clinton's game was up :)

Bob

rmck1 wrote: I'll take that as an admission then -- since parsing the meaning of "is" pretty much signaled to the world that Clinton's game was up

On the contrary.

The Sad Truth:

Just like Secular to link to something as obscure as E-prime -- a linguistic "improvement" just saturated with lefty deconstructionist assumptions, too :)

Bob

The Sad Truth:

I'm just playin' wit cha, I hope you realize ...

If you're really not Secular (or even if you are and are getting annoyed by this) you can just tell me to cut it out, you're not Secular, end of story.

Bob

The sad truth is that I am what I am and that's all that I am.

The Sad Truth:

Anything you say, Secular :)

Bob

Rich people are going to hell--says so right in the Bible.

This doesn't show anything about the Laffer curve - the Laffer curve says there will be a strong economic impetus when tax rates are cut from 90% to 50%, but when the cut is from 39% to 36%, the effects are neglible. The reason why we have a strong economy is a strong housing market (up until now), well-managed interest rates by the Fed, and free market innovations like the Internet (yes, it does promote efficiency). Tax cuts are the last reason why our economy is doing well - which is what the Laffer curve tells us.

wow, TOH.. your a complete joke. Everything you believe to be true is a facade. i feel sorry for you.

Stefan: bless you!

objective historian: of the many stupid arguments that you've posted today, your 4:19 is so inane that i'm now convinced that Joel is right - you are a performance artist, set out to make today's right wing look even dumber than it appears.

speaking as part of a household of 3, i'm wondering where my share of highways, weapons, farm subsidies, and similar government expenditures is? where's my piece of the secret service, watching my child? for that matter, where's my piece of the interest on the national debt?

设计 - 设计, 设计 - 设计, 设计 - 设计, 设计 - 设计, 机械 - 机械, 机械 - 机械, 机械 - 机械, 机械 - 机械, 泵阀 - 泵阀, 泵阀 - 泵阀, 泵阀 - 泵阀, 泵阀 - 泵阀, 彩票 - 彩票, 彩票 - 彩票, 彩票 - 彩票, 彩票 - 彩票, 旅游 - 旅游, 旅游 - 旅游, 旅游 - 旅游, 旅游 - 旅游, 仪器 - 仪器, 仪器 - 仪器, 仪器 - 仪器, 仪器 - 仪器, 医疗 - 医疗, 医疗 - 医疗, 医疗 - 医疗, 医疗 - 医疗, 数码 - 数码, 数码 - 数码, 数码 - 数码, 数码 - 数码, 培训 - 培训, 培训 - 培训, 培训 - 培训, 培训 - 培训, 租车 - 租车, 租车 - 租车, 租车 - 租车, 租车 - 租车, 注册 - 注册, 注册 - 注册, 注册 - 注册, 注册 - 注册, 名录 - 名录, 名录 - 名录, 名录 - 名录, 名录 - 名录, 民品 - 民品, 民品 - 民品, 民品 - 民品, 民品 - 民品, 机票 - 机票, 机票 - 机票, 机票 - 机票, 机票 - 机票, 化工 - 化工, 化工 - 化工, 化工 - 化工, 化工 - 化工, 工业 - 工业, 工业 - 工业, 工业 - 工业, 工业 - 工业, 服务 - 服务, 服务 - 服务, 服务 - 服务, 服务 - 服务, ENGLISH - ENGLISH, ENGLISH - ENGLISH, ENGLISH - ENGLISH, ENGLISH - ENGLISH, 安防 - 安防, 安防 - 安防, 安防 - 安防, 安防 - 安防

OF COURSE, THE GREATEST ANTI-CIVIL LIBERTARIAN ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD IS THE IRS, BOTH IN THE PRIVACY INTRUSIVE PROCEDURE IT GATHERS INFORMATION AND IN THE SUBSTANTIVE MANNER IT INTERFERES IN PEOPLE'S LIVES WITHOUT NECESSITY. BUT SOMEHOW CIVIL LIBERTIES CONCERNS DISAPPEAR WHEN REGRESSIVE-DEMOCRATS ARE TAKING PEOPLE'S HARD EARNED INCOME.

TOH

People on welfare make more per hour than the CEO of Exxon.

TOH

People on Welfare Wage: $ Infinity / Hour Worked. That's a lot.

TOH

Cactus:

No, it implies that those states would be worse off given the same resources and population if Regressive-Democrats were in charge. Regressive-Democrats would turn Southern Alabama into a South Bronx, too. You bring misery everywhere your foot falls because you just take people's hard earned money under the guise of Robin Hood-ism and use it to feed your power machine, dispensing it to voters for what always proves, statistically, to enable further their self-destructive behavior. Regressive-Democrats, when they were in power in this country ('65-'80, noting they controlled the Congress and all of urban America during the Nixon years) were worse than a plague. And these posts prove the metaphysical plague that is Regressive-Democrat worldviews and policies and lust for power is trying again to spread to our vital organs.

TOH

In JOEL's insanity, that which causes poverty does not cause income inequality. JOEL, YOU ARE A MORON. I don't need a link; your statement is logically IDIOTIC. Or, if you want to take a futile crack at it, please explain how that which overwhelmingly causes poverty cannot be a cause of income inequality. This should be fascinating.

TOH

I AM A GOD AMONG MERE MORTALS. HEAR ME ROAR MY MIGHTY WISDOM DOWN FROM THE MAJESTIC MOUNTAIN OF NEWSPAPERS, PAPER PLATES, CIGARETTE ASH, THE ODD UNFINISHED TAKEOUT MEAL IN ITS CRUSHED CARTON, AN OLD POSTER OF JENNIFER ANISTON IN 'FRIENDS,' MY LEG SHOW, HUSTLER AND JUICY SPASMS COLLECTIONS, OLD PRINTER RIBBONS, BUSTED CD JEWEL CASES, PENCIL SHAVINGS, USED KLEENEX STIFF WITH DRIED CUM AND ALL THE OTHER IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL ACCOUTREMENTS NECESSARY TO PROVOKE THE AWE-INSPIRING MAJESTY OF WHAT IT'S LIKE TO LOOK DOWN UPON MERE MORTALS FROM THIS MIGHTY MOUNTAN.

IT IS A MIGHTY MOUNTAIN, INDEED. MY MOTHER WILL *NEVER* HAVE THE HEART TO CLEAN IT, HAH! HAH! HAH!

MY MOTHER IS A WEAK WOMAN -- BUT SHE RAISED A GOD AMONG MEN !

HEAR ME ROAR HEAR ME ROAR HEAR ME ROAR !

THE PROBLEMS OF THIS WORLD ALL COME DOWN TO THE BAD CHARACTER OF OTHER PEOPLE. POOR PEOPLE, RETARDED PEOPLE, PEOPLE WITH LARGE EARS, FAT PEOPLE, PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AND WILL NOT CONTROL THEIR PUBLIC FLATULENCE, PEOPLE WITH BIRTHMARKS, PEOPLE WITH FETISHES FOR SYNTHETIC MATERIALS, PEOPLE WHO WILLFULLY REFUSE TO OPEN THEIR HEARTS TO A CUTE PUPPY -- ALL THIS CAN BE SUMMED IN ONE WORD:

WEAKNESS.

THIS WEAKNESS IS VILE AND CONTEMPTIBLE. IT IS A WONDER THAT THIS HUMAN REFUSE DOESN'T INSTANTLY COMMITT SUICIDE ONCE IT REALIZES THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER -- AS REVEALED BY NONE OTHER THAN THE PROPHET OF PROPHETS YOURS TRULY. HERE ON THE HIGH MAJESTIC MOUNTAIN TO LAY BARE THE TRUTH AND SODOMIZE IT WITHOUT LUBRICATION.

YES, I AM HERE TO INSPIRE MASS SUICIDES OF THE UNWORTHY. KILL YOURSELVES, YOU WRETCHED CRETINS ! KILL YOURSELVES NOW, WHILE YOU'RE STILL STATED WITH EMPTY PLEASURE !

HERE, HAVE A KLEENEX !

HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH! HAH!

TOH

In 2004, Congress passed a law allowing the repatriation of overseas earnings at a rate of 5.25% vs 35% normal rate for 2005 ax year. How much, if any of the increased Federal revenues are attributed to this one time only tax reduction? (normally international corporations treat their overseas earnings as a tax shelter and do not repatriate those funds)

Posted by: Al - "So making the rich richer helps everyone, including the poor and the middle class because of the new jobs."

Bill Clinton's economy created 22 million new jobs. Bush's economy created 5 million. Where in the hell are the new jobs?

You know, Drum's orginal post here is proof positive; the tax system is becoming uber-progressive. The math here means the rich are paying more and more of the taxes and the lower 95% less and less. They are getting richer, but via education - available to all at the local library regardless of whatever rationalizations you use to blame income skewing on a fundamentally sound public school system that provides at rich taxpayer expense ample OPPORTUNITY to get an education albeit not coercion tactics - civil liberties and all, eh wot - anyone can learn marketable skills and become a millionaire by the time they are 45 (really 35 in the big three low-risk renumerative fields: lawyer, banker, consultant).

So, thank you Drum for proving the tax system is more progressive than ever.

TOH

WELL:

For one, I would not use the term "mere" to describe mortals . . . quaint . . . droll . . . entertaining . . . sometimes inspiring . . . but not "mere". Mortals are quite powerful at times.

The rest . . . I mentioned . . . as I mentioned here . . . quaint and droll.

TOH

Back to the original point: I don't really see the Bush cuts of 2003 as classic "supply-side" measures. Such measures have traditionally been understood to focus on the crucial importance of tax rates. The lafferite argument - if I got it aright - states that there are two tax rates that could produce a zero revenue: a zero rate, and a 100 percent rate. Somewhere between you have an optimum rate of tax. Now, speaking as a Brit, I can assure you that the tax rates that Maggie Thatcher removed in the 1980s raised less revenue than the lowered rates of the 80s. Our entrepreneurs stopped fleeing to California and Spain and came home. People did not need to avoid the much lower rates and so, revenues ballooned.

I think that the main drivers of the rising revenues in States since 2003 have been a resilient economy, low interest rates, a booming housing market, and some of the stimulus emanating from the tax cuts. Some of the so-called liberals (in fact, socialists) on this thread try to deny that tax cuts have played a role in stimulating growth, but their comments fly in the face of the experience of places like Hong Kong, Thatcherite Britain and yes, horrors, Reagan's America.

The unwillingness of the tax-and-spend left to face facts is shameful. Mind you, parts of the right in America are hardly better, since they have beens spending money like Democrats on crack cocaine.