February 12, 2008

News you can use

Whip this out next time your friendly neighborhood dupe throws around the term "tax and spend" to describe the Democrats.

Blue columns represent Democratic administrations, Red represents when oh-so-fiscally responsible Republicans have been in office.

Click here to view larger, clearer version.


At 2/12/2008 2:47 PM, Anonymous Josh Curren said...

As a Republican - this is the one area where the Party has gone way off its base. This is exactly why the Conservative portion of the Party is so upset.

At the same time, the graph is overly simplistic and the reasons are very vast as to why it looks the way that it does...

1. Defecits rose under Reagan as he (1) had to spend to get out of the economic mess that was left him by the Carter Administration (you no doubt recall the 'Misery-Index.') and (2) Carter balanced the budget by decimating the Defense department to a degree that he was powerless to deal with the hostage crisis (we did not even have functioning helicopters - BlackHawk Down).

Clinton was the beneficiary of a runaway economy due to the 'tech' stocks and tech-boom - which greatly increase receipts.

With all that said - yes, Republicans have spent like drunken-democrats - and I know very few Republicans that like it.

At 2/12/2008 6:04 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Wow, that attempt to somehow blame things on Democrats was lame, even by your standards.

Nice try though.

And of course, I'm sure you'll rush to excuse the next Dem president because he or she inherited Bush's disasterous experiment with Republican trickle-down economics

At 2/12/2008 9:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


You don't even want to play that game do you? You are such an incredible fool.

Tax cuts have INCREASED revenues, even in an extremely challenged economic period - beginning at the end of the Clinton Administration and expanding with 9-11.

The deficits have been REDUCED by the tax cuts that ALL AMERICANS have experienced. The increasing deficits are a product of fiscal conservatives not being fiscally conservatives.

Bad economy - tax cuts = INCREASED Federal revenues.

At 2/12/2008 11:34 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I find your brand of faith based voodoo economics curious.

You simply are told these things are true, without the slightest shred of evidence, and yet you feel so certain it's true, that you come here and spout it as if it's fact.

It's not.

Trickle down economics and massive tax cuts for the very wealthy haven't helped anyone but the very wealthy, and combined with Republicans grabbing at the trough with both hands and a couple feet, it's nearly wrecked the dollar and our economic standing in the world. That's quite an accomplishment.

But if you think that the reckless and ineffective tax policy is somehow helping the economy, you're dreaming.

At 2/13/2008 12:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, censoring?

All I have said is that the tax cuts have INCREASED revenues.

I have said nothing about trickle-down economics or anything else.

Tax cuts FOR EVERYONE indeed have increased REVENUES.

This is an actual fact, regardless of how you wish to demonize it. Of course, the Republicans have been spending like Democrats - they are all terrible, I admit it.

At 2/14/2008 10:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of the remaiing candidates for POTUS, the candidates and where their proposals stand on additional spending -

Paul - (negative 151.2-billion)
Huckabee - $6.9-billion
McCain - $54.2-billion
Clinton - $218.2-billion
Obama - $287.0-billion

Source: ntu.org (National taxpayer Union)

At 2/14/2008 12:47 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

If tax cuts aimed primarily at the very wealthiest have "increased revenues" as you put it, and this is a rock solid fact, then why no source?

Why can't you point to numerous credible unimpeachable sources that state this?

And perhaps more important, increase revenues to WHO??!!

WHAT revenues has it increased?

We all know it's made the rich richer at a faster rate than ever. That's not news.

Is THAT why you think it's such a great idea?

At 2/14/2008 7:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope, please don't be such a dope. Income tax revenues have increased with the decrease of tax rates.

If you need a source, please go to ntu.org (National Taxpayer Union).

There, you will also find that the top 1% pay 39.38% of the taxes (up from 33.71% in 2002) and the top 5% pay a total of 59.67% (up from 53.8% in 2002).

You will also find that the bottom ONE-HALF pay 3.07% of all income taxes collected (DOWN from 3.5% in 2002).

One-half of the country pays almost no income taxes!

What are you complaining about?
Maybe, just maybe before you go through your socialistic propoganda - maybe you should just gather a little information first!

At 2/15/2008 2:07 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Thanks for your dumb suggestion, but if I get information, I'll get it from a CREDIBLE source, not some anti-tax front group that you so gullibly believe.

And trust me, government revenues aren't up due to tax cuts.

Any 4th grader can figure out that you don't take in more money by taking in less.

This is the insanity of the anti-tax zealots argument in it's essence.

And you sure the hell don't slash taxes in a time of war. This is the first time in American history where that's been tried, and with disasterous effects.

The economies going in the tank Skippy, and your sacred tax cuts are a key reason.

At 2/15/2008 7:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TRUST YOU, not facts that are documented?

Herein lies the problem - what you just don't understand.

1. Tax rates are cut,
2. People have more money,
3. They buy things, they invest in business,
4. Business grows,
5. Busienss hires more people,
6. More people make more money - thus,
7. TAX REVENUES INCREASE, yes, even by cutting tax rates!

Why do you think that both parties plow money into a stimulus package?

because more money in the economy, ok, get this...actually helps the economy!
(Of course, there are many ways that the stimulus package could help the economy more, but this is the best 'political' response).

Seriously Dope, you need to get a subscription to 'Fortune' or some financial magazine. These are simple economic issues that you need to understand.

At 2/16/2008 3:17 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Subscribe to "Fortune"?

How about sitting down and having a nice chat over wine with Malcolm Forbes Sr.? I have. (this is 100% true.)

But aside from that crap, your need to make such complex issues comic book simple is showing once more.

Of course I understand that the more money in circulation in the economy can in some instances juice it up.

But what I find goofy in your opinions on the matter is your seemingly blind faith that tax cuts are some sort of miracle fix for the econonmy.

First of all, tax cuts may provide a small stimulus to the economy, and done properly may even increase revenues to the government. But it must be noted (which you'll ignore) that revenues would increase WITHOUT Bush's tax cuts as well. A fact you don't acknowledge. Revenues automatically increase as a function of economic growth. Yet you attribute magical powers to putting more money in the hands of extremely wealthy people, widening the already dangerous gap between rich and poor, and further draining the treasury.

The fact of the matter is that tax cuts are revenue cuts, period. You can argue 8 ways to sunday, but that fact remains a fact.

You expect us to believe that these tax cuts have somehow increased revenue. Even if we assume that's true, the fact remains that without the multi-billion dollar cuts, revenues would be even higher, and without any noticable hickup in the economy at all.

The economy was humming right along before these massive cuts. And you can take away the tech boom twice over, and it was still performing incredibly well, and people ACROSS THE SPECTRUM were doing better economically. This is without the tech sector, OK?

The economy is now a wreck and in dire condition, and again, take out Iraq and defense spending entirely, and the economy would STILL be going down the tubes.

So how to you square that with your wishful thinking on tax cuts?

You can't. It's all just that, wishful thinking, spread by greedy people who stand to gain and don't want to pay their fair share of the cost of running this country and providing the structure and support needed to aquire their wealth in the first place.

In other words, you're arguing until you're blue in the face in favor of giving more resources and power to those who ALREADY hold nearly all the resources and power in the country.

I find that both morally wrong and factually insupportable.

You're operating on pure, 100% propaganda on a topic that is wide open to manipulation. People can, and do, throw out numbers every which way to try to "prove" their point. The fact is that unless you're an economist and the figures are subjected to close scrutiny, it's all crap.

You'd sit here throwing out bullshit from conservative phony organizations which are funded by wealthy interest to spread propaganda in favor of tax cuts for months on end. What would it prove? Absolutely nothing.

Yet that's all you bring to the table, but still insist you're right.

But back to my point. Tax cuts are not the way to economic salvation. They are only beneficial when used in strict moderation and at the right time, and certainly not the way Bush has implemented them or when he implemented them.

Taking your argument to it's conclusion, government revenues would peak if NO ONE paid a dime in taxes.

You refuse to accept that these tax cuts are wrongly targetted at the very, very wealthy, are excessive, and shouldn't be in place in a time of war to begin with.

Tax cuts will NOT improve, let alone solve, our economic problems. Period.

At 2/16/2008 7:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your premise is off - you do not know that revenues would have increased without tax cuts. You do not know that the economy would have grown.

At the end of the Clinton Administration, we were starting a recession. As this continued, Bush cut tax rates (for everyone). The economy rebounded. You do not know if or when the economy would have rebounded without the tax cuts.

I do appreciate that you finally gave me the - "tax cuts may provide a small stimulus."

At 2/16/2008 8:52 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

NOW we're getting somewhere. You say I don't know this and that or if this or that would have happened.

OK, I'll gladly admit that.

As long as you admit the obvious as well, that NEITHER DO YOU know whether the things you are so cock-sure about have happened, will happen, or not.

That is why it's absolutely futile, as I've tried to tell you repeatedly, to discuss vast and impossible issues such as tax policy and economics here, yet you insist on trying to do so over and over and over, and it always ends the same.

Will you please just give it up, FINALLY?

When it comes to such vast and complex areas, you don't know what you're talking about, and neither do I. So stop wasting everyone's time.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home