The US economy and politics

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

And tax cuts do cause deficits when spending are not reduced to compensate.

Unless of course the economy grows meanwhile. It's not the simplistic zero-sum game you make it out to be, Jeff.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I'm much better off. Bet you're not surprised.

Sigh.
From what we know about you, I find it hard that you could apply the phrase, "much better off" to your particular situation.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Pssst! If he paid that much in taxes, he's one of the wicked people Mr. Kerry plans to coerce into financing all of his planned new spending programs.
You know---the "wealthy"? ( Of course, I suspect that Tireur isn't exactly sailing his yacht around the Aegan sipping bubbly from the navels of supermodels, but still, he's in the crosshairs---and a lot of people just like him. )

Alas, no. Our dear Tireur is still not yet among the ranks of the wealthiest Americans. The taxes he pays (he combined income and sales taxes in his $53,000 figure) does not put him onto the A-list at Bush's ranch parties. As crosshairs goes he's getting smacked hard by the Bush tax policies. Tierur and his wife, hardworking as they are, earn too much to be taxed as the poor don't earn enough to get out of paying a burdened share!

(Many of us (less than 8% of all Americans) pay that much and more in income taxes alone and still don't reach the ranks of the wealthiest 1-2% of Americans. It really is an elusive standing.)

[Inquartata]

Kerry's definition of "the rich" is "those making over $200,000 a year". So I think T's household probably still qualifies. However bad he has it now, it's only going to get worse under the Champion of the Underpriviledged.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Can we expect the same sour question if President Kerry fails to "create 10 million new jobs"? Color me dubious...

Silly boy, always changing the subject from a real failure to a hypothetical one. Bush's tax cuts, eg, the "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconcilation Act of 2002" were marketed with glowing projections of fantastic job growth that would result. Which hasn't happened. The 2002 (post 9/11!) "Economic Report of the President" predicted full recovery in 2004 with payroll employment reaching 138 million, 7 MM more than actual.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Horrors. The very idea of letting people keep their own money, why, how DARE they?

Talk about simplistic, sloganeering instead of meaningful responses...

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by jeff

There is pork - and it is bilateral, but with both houses controlled by Republicans, they've been the greediest pigs at the trough *this* cycle.

Alaskans love pork! We all say this prayer before we go to bed, "God Bless Uncle Ted and keep him in the Senate!"

[Tireur]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

( Of course, I suspect that Tireur isn't exactly sailing his yacht around the Aegan sipping bubbly from the navels of supermodels, but still, he's in the crosshairs---and a lot of people just like him. )

No, but I do have that in MY crosshairs.

What wasn't mentioned is, that we gave nearly $xx.xxx.xx in donations and, thank goodness (???), we have a mortgage.

If we were renting (or our house was paid off) and had only given $750.00 in donations (like Kerry when he was a single Senator) the taxes would have been even more outrageous.

Mr. Kerry is going to want more to pay for his pie in the sky.

[Tireur]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Tierur and his wife, hardworking as they are, earn too much to be taxed as the poor don't earn enough to get out of paying a burdened share!

That's always been the way, hasn't it?

I started working during the Nixon administration while in high school and every time since then that I've gotten a raise or made more on my own, it's just put me in a worse tax bracket.

The only real help I got was during the Reagan era. Interest had been at a godawful high during Carter's four years. Went down during Reagan. (of course, I wasn't complaining about the 20% CDs were making during the 80s either.)

What was funny was hearing Teddy ("And when I returned, Mary Jo and the car were gone") Kennedy blaming the "high interest rates" on "Reaganomics"

What? Was he drunk all during the Carter years?


Sorry, sometimes I just lose my way..............

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Silly boy, always changing the subject from a real failure to a hypothetical one. Bush's tax cuts, eg, the "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconcilation Act of 2002" were marketed with glowing projections of fantastic job growth that would result. Which hasn't happened. The 2002 (post 9/11!) "Economic Report of the President" predicted full recovery in 2004 with payroll employment reaching 138 million, 7 MM more than actual.

Red herring. I just want to know if the 'tude is suddenly going to vanish once Kerry brings rainbows and daisies to America, even if results are lacking. I suspect not.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Talk about simplistic, sloganeering instead of meaningful responses...

Yes--unlike, say

"When the carnival barker is pushing the same patent medicine at your regardless of the ailment, you can be sure that it's snake oil."

Praise from the Master...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Tireur

What? Was he drunk all during the Carter years?

And the Reagan years...and the Bush years...and the Clinton years...

[Tireur]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And the Reagan years...and the Bush years...and the Clinton years...

Of course, what was I thinking?

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Kerry's definition of "the rich" is "those making over $200,000 a year". So I think T's household probably still qualifies. However bad he has it now, it's only going to get worse under the Champion of the Underpriviledged.

The point is equity, taxation equity. Fair share. Not the weathiest paying less in percentage points than others. And still for the purposes of this example- if Tireur's current household income is over $200,000 then he isn't paying taxes at a fair rate in relation to the rest of working Americans! At $53,000 in taxes, and let's be generous of mortgages and those bags of old suits donated to goodwill and the contributions to charities of his choice, after deducting a modest third to sales taxes, Tireur's rate is a mere 17-20%. Far below what would come out of a qualifying household income! Under an equitable plan, the Tireur family would be expected to pay a rate fair to the amount of income earned. Not more, not less. Champion of the underpriviledged is not setting out to screw the rich guy, he's just going to charge the admission due to watch the games.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Tireur

That's always been the way, hasn't it?

I started working during the Nixon administration while in high school and every time since then that I've gotten a raise or made more on my own, it's just put me in a worse tax bracket.

Yes, I understand that experience too. We have been in a lousy tax bracket since we've started working. The curse and burden of the middle class.

Carter aside, since he inherited a truly horrible economic recession from which he was unable to convince the Congress to pass the proposals and policies aimed at economic growth, the remaining years of paycheck robbery woes have all been under Republican Administrations! The only time I started to reap the luxuries of my higher income was during the Clinton years. I made more, had more spendable income, saw higher raises on an annual and greater basis, felt more secure in my employment future, and experienced less transition and change among the financial restructuring at my company. (I do work at a firm very vulnerable to who's leading the country and his policies and plans.)

Originally Posted by Tireur

The only real help I got was during the Reagan era. Interest had been at a godawful high during Carter's four years. Went down during Reagan. (of course, I wasn't complaining about the 20% CDs were making during the 80s either.)

Republicans like to point to the failures of the Carter Administration and then claim that Ronald Reagan brought us to prosperity. But the truth is that much of that real help you got was a result of some Carter initiatives for which he gets or takes little credit. Many of the important initiatives from the Carter administration, specifically deregulation, are those that enabled economic boundaries to expand and produce some of the growth we still see today.

[Tireur]

Interesting how Carter inherited his poor economy, but Reagan and Bush I left nothing good for Clinton who somehow did it all on his own.

I made more, had more spendable income, saw higher raises on an annual and greater basis, felt more secure in my employment future

I think this is just normal. As time passses and people progress in their jobs they make more and feel more secure.

I know this is not true for everyone, but I do believe it to be the norm.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Red herring. I just want to know if the 'tude is suddenly going to vanish once Kerry brings rainbows and daisies to America, even if results are lacking. I suspect not.

My pointing out *your* red herring is a red herring? Hah.

Yeah - if Kerry doesn't deliver on his promises, he gets the same chance to be a one-term President that Carter had. And that rule should amply apply to GWB.

[Tireur]

The age old problem with our system is, every President has to spend his first term running for his second. Only in the second can they really cut loose and try anything bold and innovative or attempt real reform of any systems.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Tireur

Interesting how Carter inherited his poor economy, but Reagan and Bush I left nothing good for Clinton who somehow did it all on his own.

I didn't say that. But I do think he managed and then improved upon it better.

[Tireur]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

I didn't say that.

I know you didn't say it, but that's the implication.

Or so it seems. But, then again, nothing is what it seems.