we will switch tactics...

or is that strategery?

anyway..

as long as bill and hillary are alive...

we will find the RAGE to carry on!!!!

In the Democrats' ideal world: If you add on universal healthcare, the institutionalized theft pyramid scheme that is social security, federal income tax, sales tax, property tax, luxury tax, various sin taxes, toll roads, etc., we'd rapidly pass the point where 50% of every dollar the average citizen is devoted to what the government wants. When you get to the point where you can make decisions about less than half of your money, you're no longer a citizen: You're essentially a serf of the state or a new-age sharecropper. Is turning citizens into serfs really going to be popular enough to be sustainable? I tend to doubt it.

the era of the tax revolt is coming to a close. You simply can't run a political party on that, and nothing but that, forever.

You must be joking. The belief that taxes are evil, and government is wasteful, and that really, we could have everything we depend on government for today without paying taxes has an eternal, ageless appeal.

Something for nothing: that snake oil will never go out of style.

Why not, Kevin? Just continue to expand the government, as Bush has, and run up trillions of dollars in debt. And mindless sheeple like Hawk will regurgitate BS.

The only losers are the U.S. non-absurdly-wealthy.

Deficit spending gives us both programs and low taxes, with money left over for cool tombstones.

(Hawk, those DFL taxes will pay for all those programs that GOP'ers have lately been falling over each other to vote for)

ah: you're no longer a citizen

baghdad awaits....

what are you waiting for?

I always hate the rhetoric that, "the gov't steals your money" crap. This is a democratic republic we live in and the gov't works for us.

It's really not that suprising...social programs have ALWAYS been popular among both parties (look at the growth in domestic spending under Bush43 and the Republican controlled Congress of 1994-2006 if you don't believe me), it's just paying for them that has never been popular.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans has always been that Democrats prefer to pay for these programs as you go with current tax revenues while Republicans prefer to use deficit spending, essentially putting the tab on a credit card for future generations to pay.

That Republican leaders today support most spending programs is a sign of a setback in the conservative movement, but it is not the end of it.

True, many Republicans today have attempted to play to the center by supporting social spending, but this has only lead to electoral routing of Republicans. Those who want spending usually will not switch from Democrat to Republican because the Republicans do it too, and those who would vote Republican, those against more spending, simply stay home come election day. The embracing of Big Government by Republicans is ultimately bad politics for the Party, and if the Party is smart, it will come to an end.

And it should, if this country is going to survive fiscally. Right now, Medicare and Social Security are set to take up all the federal budget by 2050. This alone should call for less government spending, but instead, under the Bush Administration, government spending has skyrocketed faster than under any administration since LBJ.

In the face of a true entitlement crisis, we have seen, under the Bush Republicans, a near doubling of the Department of Education's budget, a $40 Billion a year Prescription Drug Program that does not make drugs cheaper, and a continuation of such failed programs as NASA and our foreign aid programs, which both total in at roughly $15 Billion a year.

Conservatives aren't angry because they are tired of fighting for lower taxes. Conservatives are angry because they wish Republicans were as tough on spending cuts as they were on tax cuts.

Right now, the Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, is a Party of Big Government. Is this good for the country? When we have to double federal taxes to pay for our entitlement programs, when we see inflation rise from chronic deficits, the answer will be delivered.

"I always hate the rhetoric that, "the gov't steals your money" crap."

So do I. Unfortunately, some days I think we're in the minority.

In fact, there's a whole major political party that holds that as a cherished central tenet...as an item of unassailable truth. A litmus test belief- an item of political correctness, if you will.

And they've got a decent-sized following (well, it used to be- it's getting smaller) that just laps that up.

Another story quoting "an unnamed Texas Republican legislator."

I'll toss that column in the trash bin. Why can't these anonymous people actually go on the record?? Maybe it's because the writer is making most of it up. Hmmm.

It's very simple.

The GOP has made it fortune on appealing to the credit-card-chargers -- the free-riding, free-lunchers -- and they have finally reached their credit limit.

The Dems, however, appeal to the fiscally responsible -- one might say fiscally conservative -- who prefer to pay as they go.

"Why can't these anonymous people actually go on the record??"

Indeed. I'm still waiting for those unnamed "senior administration official" to come forward with that slam-dunk evidence they have that the Iranian government is killing Americans in Iraq.

As we see from the comments on this thread, this tax policy is based on a set of racist stereotypes about lazy shiftless people who don't want to work. Apparently, that includes all the working people who benefit from Soc. Sec, medicare, etc.

It's just like the unruly mob in the Simpson's episode "Much Apu About Nothing." As Quimby's aide says "They want the bear patrol but they don't want to pay the taxes for it."

Should the Republicans ever abandon tax cutting as an issue, it will be the end of the Republican Party. Most of their voters think their taxes are too high, and this is an priority issue for them. Where they and the Republicans differ is that the Republicans in Congress have always wanted bigger government (helps buy votes from the center). The era of the tax revolt is not over but, hopefully, the era of cutting taxes while growing government is. If it isn't, the Republican Party is going the way of the DoDo.

Now, everybody wants the programs, but one group [the Republicans] is unwilling to pay for them, and the other group [the Democrats] is unable to pay for them."

You don't say.

In fact, regular readers will recall that I was making precisely this point to ol' tbrosz years ago, noting that Democratic fiscal policy is more responsible than the deficits-gone-wild policies the Republicans imposed when they controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

It's just one more hint that, as Mark Schmitt wrote for us last month, the era of the tax revolt is coming to a close.

The test will come when Bush's temporary tax cuts expire. Republicans will push to have them extended. The deciding votes will be cast by the blue dog Democrats, most of whom are in competitive districts.

It's fun to be generous with someone else's money, as politicians and juries have discovered. You can feel virtuous. The recipients love you. And it costs you nothing.

So, there are welfare programs for the rich and middle class (such as farm payments, earmarks, college loans, Social Security and Medicare) and, of course, welfare for the poor. Voter who are receiving some sort of government payment will support increasing government payments.

Of course, these payments are made with money taken from Americans. But, the people whose money is taken aren't thanked or given credit. No, credit is given to the politicians who pass laws taking money from A and giving it to B.

Such an approach is bad for the overall economy and bad for civil liberties, but it's hard to see how it will ever end. In fact, I would expect government transfer payment programs grow indefinitely.

As we see from the comments on this thread, this tax policy is based on a set of racist stereotypes about lazy shiftless people who don't want to work. Apparently, that includes all the working people who benefit from Soc. Sec, medicare, etc.

Indeed. And all those good old antitax Republicans that refused any help from FEMA after a hurricane.

Hawk what would you do without to help lessen the tax burden.It's easy to blame wefare queens as you like to say ,but what would you do without.

And all those good old antitax Republicans that refused any help from FEMA after a hurricane.

Indeed. I remember especially vividly Trent Lott eschewing any and all Federal help for Mississippi after the hurricane, lest the citizens there develop a dangerous culture of dependency.

Rugged individualists all.

"You simply can't run a political party on that, and nothing but that, forever"

True. You can, however, redistribute trillions of dollars up the income scale in the meantime.

Everyone's favorite faux-moderate concern troll wrote: That Republican leaders today support most spending programs is a sign of a setback in the conservative movement, but it is not the end of it.

It doesn't matter whether "Republican leaders today support most spending programs," asswipe, it's the fact that the American people support many popular spending programs so overwhelmingly that Republican leaders today have to at least pretend to support said spending programs in order to have a chance in hell of getting elected, and in Red states, yet, that spells the doom of the modern Republican Party. And all your bullshit faux-moderate concerna trolling won't change the fact, "brian" -- Republicans simply can't get elected if they're honest about their agenda.

Don't worry, though -- the incompetence and corruption of the modern Republican Party will probably mean that the subject won't get much chance even to come up.

True. You can, however, redistribute trillions of dollars up the income scale in the meantime.

That's sooooo judgmental.

Think of it as 'constituent service' by a 'responsive government'.

You simply can't run a political party on that, and nothing but that, forever.

A couple years ago I read Stephen Ambrose's biography of Eisenhower. I was struck by something that happened shortly after he took office. Ike remarked to someone, Senator Taft wants me to cut taxes, but he can't tell me how to pay for it. The more things change, as the saying goes...

It should be apparent to all but about 23% of us that the axiom "you get what you pay for" applies to government and society as much as anything else. We tried not paying for education -- and education got worse. We tried not paying to keep our roads in shape -- and our roads got worse. We tried not paying for military hospitals -- and military hospitals got worse. We tried not paying for airport security -- and we got 9/11.

The only exception is the military. We payed more and more and more for that -- and it got worse too. Of course, none of what we paid was ever intended to go to that part of the military that's made up of, you know, soldiers. No, we payed lots and lots of money to contractors -- and they got better. But only at taking lots and lots of money. But that's okay, too -- that's all the GOP wanted them to do.

Mission Accomplished!

In the Chicago area property tax referenda for schools, libraries and local taxing bodies are getting voted down more than voted up.

In the Chicago area people are fed up with high property taxes.

D. I always hate the rhetoric that, "the gov't steals your money" crap. This is a democratic republic we live in and the gov't works for us.

Fair enough, but that only goes so far. The issue with taxation is: how much work do our fellow citizens do for us, and what are the terms of the implied contract? It is also the case that "we" are the government, and if we raise taxes on the richest 1%, then we are making some citizens work extra for the government. When you talk of raising taxes on the richest investment bankers, no one feels any remorse; when the tax system starts raising taxes on all the most productive engineers, scientists, doctors, nurses, inventors, entrepreneurs, investors and so forth, then you have to think that you might be talking about a malign expansion of government power.

Marler wrote: The test will come when Bush's temporary tax cuts expire.

A "tax increase," of course, that was written into law by Reublicans and singed by President Bush himself. Of course, it was also typical Republican book-cooking (pretending the cost of the tax cuts was less that it was intended to be), making a two-fer of GOP malfeasance.

Republicans will push to have them extended.

See my earlier comment about Republican fiscal irresponsibility. Wonderful party you carry water for, there, Marler.

The deciding votes will be cast by the blue dog Democrats, most of whom are in competitive districts.

As usual, Marler's obvious glee at the difficulties Democrats face in cleaning up Republican messes marks him as a particularly vile sort of partisan.

Should the Republicans ever abandon tax cutting as an issue, it will be the end of the Republican Party. Most of their voters think their taxes are too high, and this is an priority issue for them.

Except that, oddly, most of their voters don't think their own individual services that they receive from state and local governments are too high. At least I don't see them offering to go without their benefits....

"ex-liberal" continues to prove his/her/its handle, like everything else he/she/it posts, is a lie: It's fun to be generous with someone else's money, as politicians and juries have discovered. You can feel virtuous. The recipients love you. And it costs you nothing.

Yeah, right, "ex-liberal." That statement more accurately applies to the Republican Party, which reaps the benefits of tax cuts and spending other people's money -- namely, our childrens' and grandchildrens'.

"ex-liberal"'s bullshit neocon "wealth transfer" talking points are as stale and phony as his/her/its insistence that the Unites States sacrifice its blood, treasure and national security to secure the regional hegemony of the State of Israel. Fortunately, the American public are getting wise to the inehrent deceptions at the core of the neocon/Republican platform. That dog jut won't hunt any more, "ex-liberal."

Matthew:

It's all a matter of perspective, though. The last time we had a balanced budget, the richest and "most productive" were paying more in taxes. It's only a tax increase now because Bush slashed the rates without regard for the budgetary implications.

It's less a "malign expansion of government power" than a return to the status quo ante Bush. A time when, incidentally, our fiscal situation was as healthy as it's ever been since Reagan started the "have your cake and eat it too" crapola.

It's fun to be generous with someone else's money...ex-lax at 2:42 PM

By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate for more favorable rates on drugs. Many critics regard this as poor stewardship of tax dollars, and cite the vast sums of campaign contributions that pharmaceutical companies have delivered to American lawmakers as the reason this plan was accepted.[citation needed] The Veterans Administration, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, pays 58% less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D.[17]
The plan requires Medicare beneficiaries whose total drug costs reach $2400 to pay 100% of prescription costs until $3850 is spent out of pocket. This coverage gap is known as the "Donut Hole." While this coverage gap will not affect the majority of program participants, a large minority will find themselves without prescription drug coverage for much of the plan year.

It is difficult to take Republican mommy state talking points seriously when they pass corporate giveaway programs like this on top of their standard corporate welfare state policies.

Marler wrote: when the tax system starts raising taxes on all the most productive engineers, scientists, doctors, nurses, inventors, entrepreneurs, investors and so forth, then dishonest conservatives like myself think that you might be talking about a malign expansion of government power.

Fixed it for you.

"It doesn't matter whether "Republican leaders today support most spending programs," asswipe, it's the fact that the American people support many popular spending programs so overwhelmingly that Republican leaders today have to at least pretend to support said spending programs in order to have a chance in hell of getting elected, and in Red states, yet, that spells the doom of the modern Republican Party. And all your bullshit faux-moderate concerna trolling won't change the fact, "brian" -- Republicans simply can't get elected if they're honest about their agenda."

If Gregory hadn't been living under a rock the past six years, he would have realized that under the Bush White House we have seen the greatest increase in non-defense domestic spending since the Great Society. Among these spending increases:

1) Pork Barrel Spending skyrocketed 800%.

2) The Department of Education's budget skyrocketed from roughly $35 Billion a year to $88 Billion a year.

3) The Prescription Drug Bill, which is estimated to cost $400 Billion over ten years at the least and up to possibly $1 trillion over ten years at the most, was passed.

4) Failed programs, such as the $15 Billion a year NASA and $15 Billion a year of foreign aid, have been continued.

The Republicans have abandoned conservative principle, and they paid the price for it in elections by alienating fiscal conservatives in their base.

And has this spending made our lives better? Has the Dept. of Education budget hike made students more able or willing to learn? Has foreign substantially reduced foreign poverty?

Yes, the majority of voters do support government spending, but that is because our leaders have lied to them of the costs. Bush, and the Democrats that went along with him, told voters they would get a free lunch. But the cost of Big Government, long term inflation and tax increases, will be felt.

As Chuck Hagel said, the Republicans are "acting like Democrats" on domestic spending. True, the Republicans are the ones who bear responsibility for the deficits. But the problem is not that Americans are taxed too little; the problem is that government spends too much.

It's a racket, Gregory, and calling me a troll won't change that.

Ah Kevin Drum, from your comfortable perch on the coast you love telling the little people exactly what their meandering thoughts look like from such commanding heights.

Here's another--better--perspective of what's going on in Texas.

Obviously, your faithful readers never have to wonder how Dick Nixon got elected running against pointy-headed policy and academic elites.

By the way, I notice that "ex-liberal" has been abselt from many of these threads -- the sagging fortunes of the Republican Party and the wholesale rejection by the american people of the neocons' lunatic, dishonest agenda must be demoralizing indeed -- but that a thread about tax cuts sounds the dog whistle.

The performance of the Republican apologists as they froth about the insane tax-butting policies they demand, in the undeniable face of the fiscal disaster their policies cause, is amusing indeed. But isn't it always so with GOP policies? They just don't work as advertised, and the Aemrican people are figuring this out. That fact, more than anything, spells the doom of the Republican Party until it boots ideologue assholes like you out to mutter and scribble in loony libertarian online chat forums and the grownups take charge once again -- if ever.

It's just like the unruly mob in the Simpson's episode "Much Apu About Nothing." As Quimby's aide says "They want the bear patrol but they don't want to pay the taxes for it."

Yes, but the best line from that episode comes from Homer leading the mob storming City Hall:

"We're here! We're queer! And we don't like bears!"

brian: "The problem is not that Americans are taxed too little; the problem is that government spends too much. It's a racket..."

You're absolutely right that it's a racket, but what you and your ilk seem unable to comprehend is that it's possible to make a bad situation even worse. Even if you accept the premise that the Democrats traditionally spend too much money, which would place the contemporary Republicans on some twisted pedestal of equivalence, the Republicans have greatly exacerbated the problem in manifold ways.

If you fall and skin your knee, it's bad, but you can make it much worse by going to the cabinet and dumping a carton of salt on it. The Republicans have done exactly that. They've taken a problem for which they've always maligned the Democrats and made it worse by refusing to pay for it while they do exactly the same thing.

they paid the price for it in elections by alienating fiscal conservatives in their base.

A hypothesis for which there is no basis in fact. See the exit polls.

In the Chicago area property tax referenda for schools, libraries and local taxing bodies are getting voted down more than voted up. In the Chicago area people are fed up with high property taxes.

Are they also fed up with having good local schools and libraries?

It is, oddly, a rather effective round-about way of reducing taxes: the worse the schools get because there aren't enough taxes to support them the less desirable their neighborhood will be to live in, which will drive down the value of their homes, which will in turn reduce their property taxes. In the long run, the problem is solved, though not perhaps in the way the voters really wanted....

...productive engineers, scientists, doctors, nurses, inventors, entrepreneurs, investors...Posted by: MatthewRMarler on March 8, 2007 at 3:27 PM

Some of these things are not like the others!

While "entreperneurs" and "investors" are certainly motivated exclusively by money the others are not necessarily so. Einstein didn't coin the term, "It's all about the Benjamins", did he?

Oh, and please don't misquote me and think that I'm saying the others are willing to work for free.

And another thing, the money paid in taxes isn't, as one wag on this board stated, "burned in the Mall in Washington DC while legions of naked liberals dance naked around it chanting accolades to Stalin".

It's reinvested into the nation, dumb-asses!

This allows for economic growth and everyone's living standards are raised.

But for a conservative, if the Jones' living standards are raised at the same time his is then it just isn't as sweet.

It's far better to be able to lord your wealth over others.

Nice cut-and-paste job there, brian. Speaking of rackets, it's always amusing to see you drop your faux-moderate concern-troll facade. But then again, the modern Republican Party knows all about rackets, doesn't it? It's based on deception at its very core.

More for brian:

The Republicans have abandoned conservative principle, and they paid the price for it in elections by alienating fiscal conservatives in their base.

Bullshit. Bush has been governing like this from the get-go; as I said, if the GOP truly opposes this kind of spending, they're inherently dishonest about seemign to support it; if not, fiscal conservatives are fools and knaves (fits you pretty well, come to think of it) for supporting them.

Thanks for acknowledging that "conservative principle" is so unpopular among the elctorate, though.

And has this spending made our lives better? Has the Dept. of Education budget hike made students more able or willing to learn? Has foreign substantially reduced foreign poverty?

That's the problem when you elect the incompetent, mendacious and corrupt Republican Party. As P.J. O'Rourke noted back in the '80s, Republicans claim government doesn't work, then get elected and prove it.

Thanks for acknowledging the fact that the GOP is not to be tursted with the mechanisms of government, though.

Yes, the majority of voters do support government spending, but that is because our leaders have lied to them of the costs.

Again, it's the Republican leaders who have lied to them about the cost, by promising both popular spending -- and dishoenstly, even then; see the recent Medicare drug program, about whose costs the Bush Administration lied -- and those sweet, sweet tax cuts. Democrats are responsible by noting that we have to pay for the programs we want.

Thanks for acknowledging the dishonesty at the core of the Republican Party, though. That's some party creeps like you, Marler, "ex-liberal" and your ilk support.

But one fact remains clear: Your so-called "conservative principles," as espoused by you, "ex-liberal," and the neocon bullshit factories that do your thinking for you and feed you your talking points, are fundamentally delusional, dishonest and unpopular with the American people. How does it feel to know that your Party has to lie to get elected?

Actually, given your performances on this blog, it must feel pretty good to you.

"...the era of the tax revolt is coming to a close. You simply can't run a political party on that, and nothing but that, forever."

Buffoon.
Liberal over-thinker.

You are fogetting FEAR.

FEAR + tax cuts = GOP hegemony

I am betting my Halliburton stock on it.

Epsilon: The Republicans have done exactly that. They've taken a problem for which they've always maligned the Democrats and made it worse by refusing to pay for it while they do exactly the same thing.

That's a true statement. It's a fact that has made a lot of conservatives more grumpy than usual, and contributed to the success of some of the blue dog democrats.

Epsilon on March 8, 2007 at 3:35 PM |

I agree with most of that. However, the federal tax take rose during the Clinton administration without an increase (after the first, in 1993) in rates. After Bush's tax cuts and the recession reduced the federal tax take, the tax take has been rising again. Consequently, a tax increase two years from now, to the rates in effect in 2000, would in fact be a tax increase above what was being paid in 2000.

To get back to the question of whether the tax revolt is dead, consider the movement underway to repeal or reduce the "alternative minimum tax" -- it's a perfectly reasonable tax, which was accepted as long as not too many people were affected. Now that it's affecting a large enough number of swing voters to swing some representatives out of office, there is pressure to end it. That says to me that the "tax revolt" still has a lot of clout. The AMT doesn't apply to the "middle class", it applies to the "upper middle" and "lower upper."

Dr. Morpheus: It's far better to be able to lord your wealth over others.

Heh.
Great idea.
Lord Cheney.
Got a nice ring to it.

After we pardon Libby, and make no mistake:
WE WILL PARDON HIM,
we should get Blair to make them... make us "Lords."

Man... that would cause hair to grow on the palms of liberals. After the Libby pardon, I can't think of a better way to tell them to go and fuck themselves. Can you?

It is, oddly, a rather effective round-about way of reducing taxes: the worse the schools get because there aren't enough taxes to support them the less desirable their neighborhood will be to live in, which will drive down the value of their homes, which will in turn reduce their property taxes. In the long run, the problem is solved, though not perhaps in the way the voters really wanted....

Stefan, like, I imagine, in other places, public schools in IL are paid for by a combo of income taxes (supplied by the State) and property taxes (supplied locally). And, like, I imagine, in many other places, there is an under reliance on income taxes, which means that (1) when property values go up (as in the not-yet-quite-popped housing bubble in IL), people get hit with higher taxes for what is for most of them non-productive assets, and (2) huge disparities in school quality depending on local property values.

The IL Gov has just announced a plan for a *revenue* tax on big business (more than $1M revenue annually), in order to in part get the state to take a greater part of the burden of paying for education.

Disputo wrote: A hypothesis for which there is no basis in fact. See the exit polls.

I forgot to mention that too. Thanks.

But then again, the so-called "conservative principles" brian blathers about are themselves a hypothesis for which there is no basis in fact, and that's never stopped him or his ilk.

Speaking of hypotheses for which there is no basis in fact:

1) Pork Barrel Spending skyrocketed 800%.

While it's true that the GOP has shamelessly indulged in pork, this unsourced citation alone is utterly meaningless.

4) Failed programs, such as the $15 Billion a year NASA and $15 Billion a year of foreign aid, have been continued.

Objection: Assertion not in evidence: That these are, in fact, "failed programs."

And, of course, capping brian's dishonesty is the fact that the discretinary budget -- of which all of the things he mentions save Medicare are part -- pales beside the parts of the budget no Republican will cut: Defense, Social Securitym, and Medicare/Medicaid. That's where the spending is. No Republican will cut it, and they aren't willing to pay for it. Bitching about "pork barrel spending" while ignoring the money Bush is shoveling at the military-industrial complex is like complaining that a toilet seat lid is up on the Titanic.

Again, though, it's always amusing when brian drops his faux-moderate, concern-troll pose. It's also amusing that our resident Republican Cultists are, really, self-refuting.

consider the movement underway to repeal or reduce the "alternative minimum tax" -- it's a perfectly reasonable tax, which was accepted as long as not too many people were affected. Now that it's affecting a large enough number of swing voters to swing some representatives out of office, there is pressure to end it.

That's because the AMT is applying to people it was never intended to, you clod. And who's talking about repealing it? Everyone but tax cut jihadists agree it is a perfectly reasonable tax that just needs a simple fix.

And unlike your hero Republicans, the Democrats will find a way to pay for the fix too. Asswipe.

That says to me that the "tax revolt" still has a lot of clout.

You wish. It says that the Democrats are good at another form of good governence the Republicans have no interest in: Establishing justice for ordinary people.

Wonderful party you carry water for, Marler. But it's truly fun to watch it drown in its own mendacity, corruption and incompetence.

It's more than just the anti-tax stuff that can't power a party forever. It's the reflexive hatred of government. If you put an anti-corporate, anti-car board of directors in charge of Ford, you end up with some really crappy automobiles and a lousy company. (Experience suggests that it doesn't even take that.) Put a bunch of reflexively anti-government people in charge of government, and you get a dysfunctional government.

Oh, American Hawk - sometimes I respect what you have to say but today you're just blowing out your ass and calling it jazz.

To get back to the question of whether the tax revolt is dead, consider the movement underway to repeal or reduce the "alternative minimum tax" -- it's a perfectly reasonable tax, which was accepted as long as not too many people were affected. Now that it's affecting a large enough number of swing voters to swing some representatives out of office, there is pressure to end it. That says to me that the "tax revolt" still has a lot of clout. The AMT doesn't apply to the "middle class", it applies to the "upper middle" and "lower upper."

That I agree with. The only reason anyone is hearing about the AMT is because well-paid MSM journalists are starting to get hit by it.

We will have to see how much money Cheney and Rove have left after the law suit. The Wilson may be able to Lord over you Disputo,Kinda like how that sounds.

I would only mention that the AMT, even if it does only hit the "upper middle" or "lower upper" classes, still poses a far less acceptable burden on people's lifestyles than reverting Bush's tax cuts would. People in the upper middle class could still enjoy vastly different lifestyles depending on their tax burdens, whereas the filthy rich could practically wipe their asses with the money they're "saving" from Bush's tax cuts. That's the entire absurdity of supply-side economic policy as practiced by Reagan/Bush/Dubya in a nutshell: the people who benefit from it see comparatively miniscule enhancements of their lifestyles, while the national fiscal situation deteriorates inexorably because of the complete lack of spending offsets.

The issue with taxation is: how much work do our fellow citizens do for us, and what are the terms of the implied contract? It is also the case that "we" are the government, and if we raise taxes on the richest 1%, then we are making some citizens work extra for the government.

While that might be true, in abstract theory, for some possible models of taxation, its not true in an income tax system, since the activities by which people receive income are voluntary activities. No one is compelled to "work extra for the government" compared to anyone else by a tax on higher incomes, instead, the context in which people who have the opportunity to realize greater income choose whether or not to avail themselves of those opportunities is altered.

Why is that right-wingers have this bizarre tendency to pretend that things which are clearly not chosen (like sexual orientation) are "choices" and things that clearly are chosen, like whether or not to engage in activities which produce income, are "innate", such that taxing them taxes imposes an involuntary unavoidable obligation on a fixed set of people?

Re: Marler and the AMT - this tax, when first enacted (in the 60's? 70's?) wasn't intended to hit either the "upper middle" or the "lower upper". It was intended to hit only the very thin top layer, and then only when (so-called) "excessive" deductions caused the real tax rate to drop (so-called) too low.

Because it was unindexed, it has reached far lower in the income distribution than it was ever intended to ($125K or so, while still a lot of money, isn't what it was in 1970). The fact that this administration chose "tax relief" for the upper 1% before retargetting the AMT to it's original purpose always struck me as telling.

epsilon: I would only mention that the AMT, even if it does only hit the "upper middle" or "lower upper" classes, still poses a far less acceptable burden on people's lifestyles than reverting Bush's tax cuts would.

In terms of percent of tax paid per person that was reduced, the biggest reductions were in the upper middle, not upper upper classes. consequently, if the Bush tax cuts are simply reverted, the biggest increases, in percent of tax paid per person that is increased, will also be in the upper middle than in the upper upper.

When that is about to happen, we'll see whether the tax revolt does or does not still have life.

Marler wrote: if the Bush tax cuts are simply reverted, the biggest increases, in percent of tax paid per person that is increased, will also be in the upper middle than in the upper upper.

Of course, there's nothign that requires the Democrats to retain the tax cuts that benefit upper middle -- which the Democrats, not the Republicans, inserted in the tax bills, by the way -- such as the elimination of the marriage penalty and the expansion of the child credit, as long as the Democrats find a way to pay for it.

Meanwhile, the estate tax repeal and other giveaways for the uber-rich are a dead letter.

When that is about to happen, we'll see whether the tax revolt does or does not still have life.

Wow, Marler, your desperation to see life in the moldering corpse of the anti-tax movement resembles the Monty Python pet store owner's, yet is more odious. Yet another reason you provide to pay no attention to your opinion save for well-deseved mockery. Shame on you.

There are currently two Parties in Washington. The first is a tax-and-spend Democrat Party, the second is a borrow-and-spend Republican Party.

True, tax-and-spend is better than borrow spend. But the idea that tax-and-spend is the best way is not necessarily true. There is another option Americans have besides tax-and-spend and borrow-and-spend, and that is not to spend at all.

Many liberals have claimed that, if Big Government was run by Democrats and not Republicans, than it would work. This, however, defies both common sense and history.

First, many of the Big Government failures of the past six years passed into law with the full complicity and support of the Democrats. No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, all passed with Democrat votes and Democrat blessing.

Second, many Big Government activities of the past that were the work of Democrats have indeed failed.

For example, our education system. The majority of the people who led the way to greater federal power for education in the past few decades were Democrats; the Department of Education came to fruition under Jimmy Carter. And what has this greater federal power led to? Tax payer dollars wasted on programs that don't make students better learners, and federal mandates that result in the whole country being dragged down whenever a few people in the federal government have a bad idea, such as standardized testing.

Federal education is one failure that Democrats were primarily responsible for, along with other failures like NASA, foreign aid, and an insolvent Social Security system.

The main difference between liberals and true conservatives (of which George W. Bush and his Republican cronies are not), is that many liberals arrogantly believe that federal power is benign as long as their Party is running the federal government, whereas conservatives believe federal power must limited, no matter how noble the intent. The reason federal power must be limited is because power corrupts, and those seeking the power of running of federal government likely do not have the national interest at heart. It does not matter what Party they belong to.

Our entitlement programs are headed toward a fiscal trainwreck. Taxpayer money is being wasted on corrupt government sponsored industries, from federal education to NASA, that repeatedly fail the American people. We are now reaping the fruits of Big Government conservatives of the past warned we would reap. And if the Democrats enjoy the same monopoly on government Republicans enjoyed until the 2006 midterm elections, it is likely the hidden costs of Big Government will continue to sap away the prosperity and freedom of the American people.

Isn't it the case that, to conservatarians, the 50s are the Golden Age? And isn't it also the case that, in the 50s, the highest marginal tax rate was 90%?

It seems the way forward is clear...

There is another option Americans have besides tax-and-spend and borrow-and-spend, and that is not to spend at all.

So true. Just cut the "defense" budget by 75%, raise the marginal tax rate on incomes over $250K and again on incomes over $1M, get rid of farm subsidies and other corporate welfare, add $1/gallon to the price of gas (not all on the same day), and you're golden. Rising living standards as far as the eye can see...

You may be technically correct about that, Matthew, but it doesn't contradict my assertion. If you allow the "upper middle class" to keep most of their tax cuts, and only revert the ones on the top 1 percent, our fiscal situation will still be overwhelmingly improved. The cumulative effect of the comparatively miniscule benefits bestowed upon the ultra-rich is far more damaging than slightly higher percentage cuts on people who make significantly less.

For instance, if I made $20,000, and Bush cut my taxes by 10 percent (assuming that paltry wage would even qualify for the income tax), it would hurt the overall bottom line very little. But cutting someone's taxes by 5 percent who makes $20 million is a whole different matter. That's really what the Democrats are talking about here, not the middle class.

Carl Nyberg: In the Chicago area property tax referenda for schools, libraries and local taxing bodies are getting voted down more than voted up.

In the Chicago area people are fed up with high property taxes.

In the San Diego area, school district after school district have passed bond measures, even when they require a 60% majority. We are more fed up with under-financed schools than with property taxes.

There are currently two Parties in Washington. The first is a tax-and-spend Democrat Party, the second is a borrow-and-spend Republican Party.

Ah, I love it when faux-modeate concern troll brian drops his pose, as he does with his Rushian reference to the "Democrat Party." All that effort of pretending you're not just another right-wig tool wasted, brian!

Not that you fooled anybody to begin with, but it's still funny.

True, tax-and-spend is better than borrow spend.

Yup. And yet you, "ex-liberal" and Marler support the Republicans anyway. Way to go, guys.

But the idea that tax-and-spend is the best way is not necessarily true. There is another option Americans have besides tax-and-spend and borrow-and-spend, and that is not to spend at all.

Hey, neat idea! Tell you what, brian -- get the Republicans to run on that platform. Then cry like the whiny little bitch you are as the American voter abandons you in droves. There's a reason the Libertarian Party makes barely a ripple on the national scene (even compared to the Greens -- now that has to be humiliating, eh?).

That's the beauty of it, brian (Marler, "ex-liberal," Yancey Ward, etc etc) -- conversatons like these reveal just what unpopular cranks you are, and how out of the mainstream your loony libertarian-based opinions are. Most of Americans realized your silly little philosophy was discredited by the Great Depression (if not the Gilded Age!), and yet here you are, political Luddites, as pathetic as, if more damaging than, the Unabomber.

Meanwhile, y'all keep voting for a corrupt Party that you know doesn't share your philosophy (or doesn't dare admit it in public), that you know is fically irresponsible, but just delivers the sweet, sweet tax cuts. And you wonder whty no one here takes you seriously?

Hidden within brian's prattle was the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to taxes.

Both groups agree that taxes are necessary and both groups agree that lower taxes are better than higher taxes, ceteris paribus.

Where they really disagree is where the tax revenue is spent. Liberals would like to see it spent on social programs, etc. Conservatives only want to see it spent on enforcement programs like the police and military.

And that, folx, is the crux of the situation. Even if everybody in the US only paid $1 in taxes conservative whiners would still bellow and moan as long as a single penny was spent on the betterment of another human being.

On the other hand they have no problem spending the exact same amount of money (or much, much, more money) as long as it's spent imprisoning or killing that same human being.

It's a values thing.

Gregory -

That's exactly correct, and it is the foundation upon which this entire "anti-tax" revolution is based. The Republicans have long appealed to the six-year-old mentality of many American voters when it comes to stuff like this. They've been like a parent whose children complain about eating their vegetables; instead of forcing them to eat healthy, they've fed them nothing but candy because that's what tastes good, regardless of the obvious negative consequences that ensue.

Reagan knew early on that the moment people actually started to feel the effects of spending cuts would be the moment that his support would sink into the abyss, so he just never cut spending. That's the whole ball game. As long as the political system in this country is based on patronage (i.e., "delivering" funds to constituents), the legislature will never significantly cut spending unless the executive forces their hand by vetoing the budget. That is the part which Reagan, Bush, and the lesser Bush have never had the fortitude to do.

Back when Southerners were Democrats they were happy to sign onto federal tax and spend programs when the tax money flowed from the industrial blue states to the red. Some conservative Dixie Dems joined with Northern Republicans to oppose the New Deal in its later years. Desegregation brought the two groups together under one party roof. But the majority of red politicians still like the programs and now after years of serving the interests of the rich they find their states will be the first in line to get hurt. They depend on roads to nowhere. This is the fault line that runs through the Republican party and creates the no tax and spend policies.

"I love it when faux-modeate concern troll brian drops his pose, as he does with his Rushian reference to the "Democrat Party." All that effort of pretending you're not just another right-wig tool wasted, brian!" -- Gregory.

When have I ever pretended to be a moderate? And how does taking a hard line on government spending make me a tool of the Republicans, who are just liberal on spending as the Democrat Party?

"conversatons like these reveal just what unpopular cranks you are, and how out of the mainstream your loony libertarian-based opinions are. Most of Americans realized your silly little philosophy was discredited by the Great Depression (if not the Gilded Age!)..."

First, just because a policy is popular does not mean it is right. Segregation was once popular in many circles. Do you support segregation, Gregory?

Second, was small government discredited by the Gilded Age? During that time, America's economy grew from being half the size of Britain's to twice the size.

Third, was small government discredited by the Great Depression? The idea that Hoover was a do-nothing President and F.D.R. saved us is a myth. Most economists agree that the Great Depression was prolonged by the Big Government meddling of both Hoover (the "Great Engineer" and a moderate, Big Government Republican) and F.D.R.

"Meanwhile, y'all keep voting for a corrupt Party that you know doesn't share your philosophy (or doesn't dare admit it in public), that you know is fically irresponsible, but just delivers the sweet, sweet tax cuts."

The Republican Party's leaders may be corrupt, and there may be a conflict between small government and Big Government voters within the Party. But whereas the Republicans are divided on the issue, the Democrat Party is unified-nearly all of them support Bigger Government. Would it not make sense to join the Party where at least some individuals share my principles?

Gregory, your argument seems to be that, because Big Government is popular with voters, and because both Parties do it, than that automatically means that Big Government is the right way and the best way.

Could it not be argued that you are saying that our future should be staked in following the crowd?

Y'know, I've wondered why conservatards like biran, "ex-liberal," Mike K, Marler, Yancey Ward and their ilk debase themselves by posting such stale, obvious, long-debunked bullshit here (okay, other than a complete lack of shame and bizarre desire to carry water for the neocons in the GOP), but I think I'm getting it --

No one else in the American political scene listens to them.

Pathetic, isn't it?

brian -

That still doesn't explain why you continue to support the Republicans even though you concede that the Democratic Party's approach is actually better on this issue.

It doesn't bother you at all that the Republicans consistently spew platitudes about limited government and spending restraint, yet repeatedly act in the most destructive possible manner when actually handed the reins of power?

At least the Democrats aren't treating you like an idiot who won't notice that they're doing the opposite of what they proclaim they believe, right?

Could it not be argued that you are saying that our future should be staked in following the crowd?

Well, sure, brian; that's no more dishonest than then rest of the crap you just spewed. ("When have I ever pretended to be a moderate?" -- ROFL!)

You're welcome to pretend that your avatistic, Luddite philosophy is some solitary tower of rectitude, brian. Just like the Unabomber.

Taxation without lobbified special interests is what we need.

Why is it that the B-1 bomber has parts/components made in all 50 states?

Special interests.

Why is it that we can spend more than a trillion dollars of US taxpayers' money DUifying the desert sands of Iraq without explicit approval of the average joe and jane citizen?

Special interests.

I don't want tax reform. I don't want higher taxes. I want lobby folks to get the hell out of Washington and restore our proud democracy.

Face it, it's cool to trash destitute folks that (oh my god what is wrong with these people) need food stamps to survive. Yet fat corporations that need a helping hand vis a vis tax breaks get a pass.

Taxes are supposed to benefit society. But obviously many think otherwise (yes, the tax-cuts for the wealthy are obscene).

"Romney bets on tax cuts to win", according to one commentator. It will be interesting to see if his approach works.

Marler and the AMT - this tax, when first enacted (in the 60's? 70's?) wasn't intended to hit either the "upper middle" or the "lower upper". It was intended to hit only the very thin top layer, and then only when (so-called) "excessive" deductions caused the real tax rate to drop (so-called) too low.

Hence, you could probably eliminate the AMT entirely if you replaced most deductions with credits at the lowest marginal income tax rate, and capped the rest at appropriate levels which prevent "excessive" deductions from happening in the first place.

To get back to the question of whether the tax revolt is dead, consider the movement underway to repeal or reduce the "alternative minimum tax" -- it's a perfectly reasonable tax, which was accepted as long as not too many people were affected. Now that it's affecting a large enough number of swing voters to swing some representatives out of office, there is pressure to end it. That says to me that the "tax revolt" still has a lot of clout. The AMT doesn't apply to the "middle class", it applies to the "upper middle" and "lower upper."

Idiot. The alternative mininum tax was never meant to apply to any portion of the middle class, not even the "upper middle" or the "lower upper" -- it was meant as a tax on the truly wealthy who, through their investment in various tax shelters, etc. had managed to avoid paying no income taxes whatsoever. Hence the word "alternative" -- it was an alternative way to get the super-rich to pay their fair share.

American Hawk: "When you get to the point where you can make decisions about less than half of your money, you're no longer a citizen: You're essentially a serf of the state or a new-age sharecropper."

Your argument is nothing more than classic boiler-plate rhetoric that's meant to misdirect the discussion, rather than address the issue at hand.

How do you characterize the mounting consumer debt that Americans have accrued? Face it -- most people's incomes are already spoken for. The question here is -- are people getting what they're paying for? With regards to privatized health care, the answer is no.

At least if government picks up the burden for health care on behalf of the American people, rather than keep the status quo on businesses and individuals, that cost would no longer be the potential family budget-buster that it currently is. How do you fiscally quantify the cost of peace of mind?

Government has traditionally been much more efficient at health care service delivery than our current privatized system. Medicare's overhead is less than 20% that of our curent privatized system, which treats health care as a tradable commodity, i.e., "we'll make you well in exchange for the equity in your house."

In terms of percent of tax paid per person that was reduced, the biggest reductions were in the upper middle, not upper upper classes. consequently, if the Bush tax cuts are simply reverted, the biggest increases, in percent of tax paid per person that is increased, will also be in the upper middle than in the upper upper.

Few people have proposed that the Bush cuts be "simply reverted", rather, what is usually proposed is that certain of the Bush cuts, those that most favor the upper end, be selectively reverted. So, even if your distributional characterization were correct, you are mostly batting at a strawman here. That having been said, I'd like to see the evidence supporting your distributional characterization.

There are two fundamental flaws in the Republican take on taxes: (1) They incorrectly claim that a reduction in taxes AND a reduction in government spending by the same amount will produce an economic stimulus, and (2) they suggest that the wealthy would be forced to endure some sort of sacrifice if they were compelled to pay income taxes at a far steeper rate.

The reason why income tax cuts [that are matched by government spending cuts] are actually contractionary is explained here:

"If the government wants to stimulate the economy to achieve higher levels of economic growth, it should increase the amount of income taxes it collects from the wealthy, not reduce them. When you increase the taxes that the government collects from the wealthy, you are collecting money that otherwise would have been saved (removed from the economy) and are spending it, instead. Aggregate spending levels increase, unemployment drops. The economic value/disvalue of income tax cuts is exactly the opposite of what the Republicans have been telling the American people for decades."

The myth that the wealthy are forced to endure some kind of loss of purchasing power is exposed here:

"The Progressive Income Tax is widely misunderstood today because people do not realize that it collects money from taxpayers in a way that always preserves every citizen's purchasing power. Each is spared the decline in purchasing power she would otherwise have experienced if only she had paid the tax."

That having been said, I'd like to see the evidence supporting your distributional characterization.

I wouldn't hold your breath....

"Romney bets on tax cuts to win", according to one commentator

...at the Moonie Times. You're a stitch, "ex-liberal." You know, don't you, that no one believes your bullshit? Why do you bother?

I'm glad we all can see, and apreciate those who serve our nation and supply the weapons and food and so many other things necessary to the offense of this great nation, and do it all for free!

cmdicely: Few people have proposed that the Bush cuts be "simply reverted",

True, but I was respondig to a comment that said just that, as I quoted. Now he had not exactly "proposed" it, not did I say that he had.

in fact let him speak again:

You may be technically correct about that, Matthew, but it doesn't contradict my assertion. If you allow the "upper middle class" to keep most of their tax cuts, and only revert the ones on the top 1 percent, our fiscal situation will still be overwhelmingly improved.

OK, perhaps I read too much into your word "revert".

Didn't John Kerry actually propose to end all of Bush's tax cuts? It has been proposed from time to time, but I think cmdicely is right that a more common proposal is like yours, to raise the tax on the richest 1% or so.

Didn't John Kerry actually propose to end all of Bush's tax cuts?

Kerry proposed to keep all middle-class tax cuts. CNN/Money on Jan. 20, 2004, described the proposal early in the campaign:

Kerry wants to roll back tax cuts for families earning more than $200,000 per year. But he wants to keep the higher child tax credit, the lower marriage penalty and the new 10 percent tax bracket for lower-income families. He also calls for new tax credits for health care and college tuition.

There may be info I've left out but Google is an option.

In a complex, interdependent society like ours, taxes are the price we pay for civilized society. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

The problem is that fools vote. And we can all see which way they vote. There are also the fools who think that the gambling and leisure classes are the ones who generate all the wealth. Which is why you hear so much whining about how increasing taxes on the richest of the rich will devastate the economy and nonsensical sophistry about how returning taxes to the Clintonian levels will be increasing the taxes beyond what Clinton had (yes, it sounds perfectly stupid when put in blunt terms, that's because it is perfectly stupid).

I'm sorry Manco_Dollars, you seem to have your heart in a good place but you are sadly mistaken about who gets a free ride from the government. It isn't those poor saps who get a few hundred dollars a month. It is the gambling class that managed to arrange things so that their purchases aren't taxed. It is the leisure class who managed to arrange it so that they can be handed truckloads of cash without anyone ever paying taxes on it. It is every sad-sack CEO who managed to weasel out of corporate taxes and those who have arranged the tax system so that those who make the most pay no more as a percentage than those who make almost nothing. Your home mortgage allows you to deduct the interest you pay from your taxes - a gift from the renters to you.

If you truly cared about keeping the lazy off the government dole you would never vote for a Republican, and certainly not a ne'r-do-well like George W. Bush whose job history is one consisting solely of cronyism and graft.

Oh, and creating a strawman of my post merely starts us down an ugly path where I stop imagining you have the best motives and start believing you are either dishonest or stupid, and we don't want to go there. So explain where my post is wrong without putting words in there that don't appear.

A better summation for my previous post might be: Capitol without labor can create nothing.

manco_dollars: I despise parasites who refuse to work hard.

Do you despise them equally when they inherit great wealth?

However, what motivation do I have to keep working hard and advance myself in my profession if I'm only going to be taxed more to fund programs I get no benefit from?

Really? Taxes are your only motivating factor? I'm having a hard time believing that. And is there some magic point in the tax structure where you pay more than a dollar per dollar earned? I think I need to see your documentation for that.

And what does it tell you when you see that those who have less are subsidizing those who have more? And do you honestly think that every program should benefit you directly? You can't be six years old, you claim to have a mortgage and a history of credit card debt, and yet somehow you want me to believe that your tax dollars should always benefit you.

Let's be clear, I'm not passing judgment on the mortgage deduction. I'm simply pointing out that it is free cash for sitting on your ass.

A civil society requires taxation. In a democratic society the people decide how that money is best spent.

Manco_Dollars, please give an example of someone who does "suck taxpayers dry."

Manco_Dollars People who inherit wealth aren't to be admired, but they don't suck taxpayers dry either.

But do you despise them? Do you think they should be taxed heavily if they do no work?

And besides, is there anybody proposing to suck anybody dry? Even if a maximum marginal tax rate of 55% is unjust, as I think it is, the only people who would ever pay it would still have plenty left over. Is it fair to characterize that as being sucked dry?

If you look at low taxes combined with high government and personal spending, that is a massive stimulus. The only thing preventing massive inflation as a result are two things: 1) Relatively inexpensive crude oil, and 2) Outsourcing of *continuously* cheaper labor and importation of *continuously* cheaper consumer goods. When the Middle East can no longer provide cheap crude and China/India/whomever cannot provide any cheaper consumer goods we will start to inflate big time. That will mean very high interest rates to keep the inflation in check at the cost of collapsing the economy and the tax base itself. Stagflation anyone? When we have ran out of least-cost-suppliers and cheap oil the crash could be pretty ugly and prolonged. We need to start looking at the demand side again before this happens (if we still have time). Get demand for oil down NOW and raise taxes to keep interest rates from climbing to choking levels.

Actually, I've got a few questions for you y'all. For one, I've read here that schools are doing much worse because we are spending less. Could someone here prove this assertion by showing how the spending per student changed in the last 40 in the US? Cause as far as I know, the spending is far higher today than it ever was, and I mean federal, state and local.
Secondly, Doc at the Radar Station made a few claims about the inflation. First of all, anyone who read the books on macroeconomics knows that inflation is a monetary phenomena, and it is due to the government printing too much money. So, I am wondering if he could explain why he thinks that relatively low oil prices make inflation low? BTW, the oil prices are low relative to what? And if, say, oil prices jump by 20%, that would not cause actual long term inflation, it would be just one time shock. Secondly, he claimed that low labor and goods' prices from China make inflation lower. I would like him to explain exactly how that would limit a purely moneraty phenomena (inflation).

In the end, I would like to ask Mr.Doc at the Radar Station to explain from what textbook on macroeconomics he was able to learn his groundbreaking theories.

3. Are hard-working Americans getting their money's worth from the taxes? Case in point, shabby public schools in most districts.

Are hard-working Americans getting their money's worth from the taxes? Case in point, shabby Iraq War, shabby foreign policy, shabby national defense, shabby assault on civil liberties.

However, what motivation do I have to keep working hard and advance myself in my profession if I'm only going to be taxed more to fund programs I get no benefit from?

As for motivation, off the top of my head I can think of status, prestige, the respect of your peers, the satisfaction of a job well done, increasing the sum total of your holdings, job security, etc. Would you rather earn $1 million a year and be taxed at 39% or earn $10,000 a year and pay no tax? If high taxes are so painful to you, I'd recommend the second choice, and yet somehow I don't think that's what you'd really choose.

As to being taxed to fund programs you get no benefit from, boo hoo hoo. It's called living in a society. It's a collective -- we all pay for things we get no benefit from, and in return others pay for things that benefit us.

Inflation as a monetary phenomenon? Absolutely. Check out the "equation of exchange" here: http://www.theshortrun.com/classroom/glossary/macro/monetarist.html

Lower price levels (P) of inputs can allow more economic growth (Q) without increasing the money supply (inflation). If the price of imported energy and consumer goods becomes expensive - the money supply and inflation will rise - all else equal. "Money" isn't created when it is printed so much.. it is when a bank *lends* it to someone. If price levels jump excessively, interest rates would need to rise to quell the money supply increase-in effect to dampen lending. As far as gasoline prices go-the adjusted for inflation all time high was in 1979 with the Iranian oil crisis. I think that we approached or possibly passed that post-Katrina for a time, but I don't have a link. Although I think Kevin had a graph here at some time or other.

All that needs to be said is this:

"Taxes are for the little people."

I wish I could take credit for such wisdom, but alas, I cannot recall where I heard that phrase. What it is, and I know the anger is probably rising out there in this flaccid echo chamber of a blog as I type this, is a statement of optimism.

You see, liberals, it is optimistic for a little guy to pay his taxes. If he works hard and thrives within the capitalist system, there is a just reward awaiting him--the opportunity to amass enough wealth that allows the *formerly* little guy to offset his gains with legally applied losses to mitigate his tax obligation.

For you see, when a man builds himself a financial empire of sorts, there are pluses and minuses that, quite within the law and quite within the bounds of legal reason, allow him to reach a zero-balance state with regards to taxation. This is the celebration of wealth that happens every day in this great country. Wealth is good. And, I would daresay, the Gordon Gekko line that "Greed is Good" is just liberal slander and satire so don't throw it back at me because it is the fictional musings of a socialist. Do not throw my words back at me without first acknowledging that this country is based on the premise that a man who works hard can get ahead. No, I do not denigrate the little guy. For all decent citizens aspire to be the "big guy" one day. Anyone who doesn't is a hippie or a fool.

Thank you, Ronald Reagan. Thank you for for delivering us to this state of grace. Shame on you liberals, you would tax it all and spend it on puffery and silliness if you could. Admit it!

Are hard-working Americans getting their money's worth from the taxes? Case in point, shabby Iraq War, shabby foreign policy, shabby national defense, shabby assault on civil liberties.

I'm sure you noticed that for all of brian's bitching about so-called wasted tax money -- including at least three, count 'em, three, unsupported assertions that NASA is a waste -- he never saw fit to mention the ruinous waste of the cost of Bush's Excellent Adventure in Iraq.

Would you rather earn $1 million a year and be taxed at 39% or earn $10,000 a year and pay no tax? If high taxes are so painful to you, I'd recommend the second choice, and yet somehow I don't think that's what you'd really choose.

Strangely enough, people worked hard, were successful, and, by golly, even got rich under the burdensome tax structure of the Clinton Administration, to say nothing of the 1950s...

As to being taxed to fund programs you get no benefit from, boo hoo hoo. It's called living in a society. It's a collective -- we all pay for things we get no benefit from, and in return others pay for things that benefit us.

Hence the origin of my snide remarks about the "rugged individualism" of the loony libertarian crowd. I'm amazed but grateful that the anti-tax jihadis display here for all to see the downright illogic of the anti-tax jihadis, to say nothing of the warped political philosophy that would embarrass a mature and well-adjusted individual.

However, what motivation do I have to keep working hard and advance myself in my profession if I'm only going to be taxed more to fund programs I get no benefit from?

Some people get off on making the world a better place. Some people get off on the power they have when they are net-contributors. Some people enjoy making other people happy. Some people care about other people.

And some people are completely selfish pricks.

So I imagine, considering what you are, that you would have absolutely no motivation to do anything that does not directly benefit yourself more than others.

And some people are completely selfish pricks.

Typical liberal drivel!

So if I work hard, provide for my family, amass wealth and live a good life, I am a "selfish prick" because I choose not to go to the Bonnaroo festival and give all of my cash to a bunch of noodle-dancing wastoids?

That's what you want, isn't it? You want the freedom to get "crispy" and pass out listening to tunes so that you won't ever have to get a job and have the basic responsibilities of an adult, correct?

A word of advice from your uncle Norman--the world has never worked that way, nor will it ever work that way. Don't believe me? Fine, do drugs, listen to tunes all day, never lift a finger or do anything for yourself and forty years from now you'll be face down in the gutter. The gravy train has to end somewhere, and that's all you liberals have ever known--an endless gravy train that has enabled you to live in consequence-free comfort so that you can indulge yourselves like common animals.

What do you think makes the handouts flow into your pockets? Oh, that's right--taxes! No wonder you wish to keep that gravy train flowing.

Now we see how hypocritical you are!

However, what motivation do I have to keep working hard and advance myself in my profession if I'm only going to be taxed more to fund programs I get no benefit from?

Who cares? The only case in which you would only be taxed more (whether or not the taxes were to fund programs you get no benefit from) would be if marginal tax rates on income were greater than or equal to 100%. Since, both in the actual US income tax system and every serious proposed alternative, that would never be the case, there is no real case where that would be the outcome of you earning more income. So, at any rate, your question is based on false premises, even before consideration of whether, in fact, every program funded by those taxes is really one that you do not benefit from.

Enough of this already. As long as there are people out there who believe that anybody who affirms the social contract is a Communist, tax revolt mania will never die.

"The test will come when Bush's temporary tax cuts expire. Republicans will push to have them extended. The deciding votes will be cast by the blue dog Democrats, most of whom are in competitive districts."

If the Dems learned anything from the ReThugs, it is how to prevent things not on your agenda from coming to a vote.

Nancy and her team will (or at least should) not let the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts even be considered in committee. Let the ReThugs "push" all they want...

"what motivation do I have to keep working hard and advance myself in my profession if I'm only going to be taxed more to fund programs I get no benefit from?"

This is the most stupid argument, EVER.

Your motivation to work harder and advance in your profession is obviously more money. But even if that "more money" is taxed as it was in Eisenhower's time, at 90%, you'll still have the 10% of the more money, and that is MORE MONEY.

Since the ReThugs' number one motivation for anything is MORE MONEY, they'll still be motivated (as they were in the 50s, 60s, 70s and early 80s) to earn more, no matter how much it is taxed.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and they can be motivated by earning an extra million, but not by earning an extra $100k. Too small an amount to be motivating, huh? $100,000. A pittance. Not worth sneezing at, I guess.

Nancy and her team will (or at least should) not let the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts even be considered in committee. Let the ReThugs "push" all they want...

Absolutely right, Cal Gal.

Dear Doc,

You are mistaking short time effects due to the an oil price increase and the actual long term inflation. Once the oil prices are stabilized and the effects are seen across the nation - the inflation rate will go back to what it was before. In other words, had the oil price were $100 and not $60 today - the inflation rate would have still be the same, if the government were keeping the same rate of increase of the money supply. Or, if I am to put it simpler, you fail to acknowledge that inflation is a dynamic phenomenon, and it requires continous increase in the money supply. A one time oil price shock does not produce that.

However, what motivation do I have to keep working hard and advance myself in my profession if I'm only going to be taxed more to fund programs I get no benefit from?

Well, if a high school drop-out turned heroin junkie shoots you after taking your wallet and you end up paralyzed from the neck down, you might re-think your position.

I find that love, happiness, fulfillment, contributing to the betterment of community, helping fellow citizens or the world at large are good enough motivations for me. I believe in the Golden Rule, an artifact of my Christian upbringing.

However, I am not pleased at how much of the taxpayers' money goes toward defense appropriations that I derive no direct benefit from, for example, spending on Iraq... or pipelines for gas/oil companies who in turn make huge profits charging the very taxpayers who subsidized the defense of their pipelines in foreign countries.

I also find little benefit if any in taxpayers footing the salary of the current Incompetent-in-Chief, the Veep Creep, and their corrupt Administration, not to mention lifetime pensions and Secret Service protection after they leave office. But that's the breaks.

How much benefit are you directly receiving from the multi-billions of tax dollars being spent on the Iraq War?

I know a white-haired lady with a heart condition who has no children. She hates the property taxes that fund her county's public schools, junior colleges, and state universities. She disgustingly said to me, "Why should I have to pay taxes for public education when I don't have kids?!" And I said, "If you have to call 911 because you are having a heart attack, let's hope first of all, there isn't a shortage of paramedics, and secondly, that the EMTs who arrive have gotten a good enough education to know all the possible ways to save your life."

It's pretty clear this blog is Communist Central.

No, we aren't communists. We are pragmatists. We live in a society where we all benefit when our citizens are well-educated, healthy, and prosperous.

It's pretty clear this blog is Communist Central.

You have established this much: you're selfish and your ability to read, comprehend and think clearly is limited indeed.

(If, as a result of Democratic legislation, you pay--for example--40 instead of 35 cents on every dollar earned over 200K, how has your incentive to earn been removed? Alternatively, if as a result of Democratic legislation, social programs are enhanced and the overall crime rate drops, how has a lower crime rate not directly benefited you?)

***Bonus question: Speaking of Communists, was Jesus Christ one of them?

Order Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription

Order prescription drugs Buy prescription drugs without prescription