Rep. Rangel will seek to reinstate draft

Parent Cafe
81

<p>Stop trying to personally attack me because you disagree with me. Milton Friedman, who incidently died a few days ago, won the noble prize in economics for saying the same things I am now. I guess someone should offer Milton Friedman Econ 101.</p>

82

<p>golani, Reagan tried exactly what you propose and, with the exception of tax revenue from the very highest tax bracket, overall tax revenues fell. So one could make the argument that the very richest among us are taxed too much, but I am not aware of any empirical evidence to back up your assertion that the US economy as a whole is taxed at too high a rate, or that Bush’s tax cuts raised revenue.</p>

83

<p>You are touching a nerve with the lefties, hence the attacks. </p>

<p>Highest level of Federal Receipts in History
<a href=“http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/revenue%20growth.jpg[/url]”>http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/revenue%20growth.jpg&lt;/a&gt;
That’s as of FY 2005. I believe we are on a pace to exceed that this year. </p>

<p>More of the taxes have been paid by the highest paid filers. In 2002 the top 5% of taxpayers with 30% of the income already paid 53% of all income taxes. The tax cuts have now increased that share further. That really p*sses off the left.
<a href=“http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/factsheetwhopaysmostindividualincometaxes.update.pdf[/url]”>http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/factsheetwhopaysmostindividualincometaxes.update.pdf&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>And jobs have been created. The economy has grown. And the markets have been on a bull run for more than three years. Sorry if I am confusing anybody with facts. Oh, that’s right, Bush is a liar so we can ignore all the economic data that is in plain view.</p>

<p>If lower taxes don’t stimulate the economy, create jobs and increase government receipts, look to Europe to see what high taxes can do. There you will see many countries struggling with high rates of unemployment and stagnant economies. But there is one exception. Ask the Irish how they feel about the relationship between low taxes and prosperity.</p>

84

<p>bananainpyjamas, pick up the work that Friedman won the noble prize for and there is your answer.</p>

85

<p>2dsdad did a much better job of responding to me than you did golani. I’m familiar with Friedman’s work; I believe you would do well to learn to better support your own claims. When someone asks for empirical evidence hiding behind someone else’s Nobel Prize isn’t the best answer.</p>

<p>2dsdad - Thanks for the links, even if I disagree that Bush has done a bang-up job with the economy (one only needs to point to the deficit to see the trouble we’re going to be in). Do you have unemployment or job-creation stats? IIRC that’s the one sector of the economy that was (or maybe is) still lagging in terms of recovery.</p>

86

<p>You are right. He did a much better job than me. Unfortunately, I am doing homework right now and do not have time to dig for empiracal data; however since you read Friedman’s work shouldnt the answers be in there? I never mentioned the whole economy being taxed too much, by the way. I simply said Bush’s tax cuts are working.</p>

87

<p><a href=“http://■■■■■■■.com/yzdhe9[/url]”>http://■■■■■■■.com/yzdhe9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>Talk about a budget buster.</p>

88

<p>golani - I don’t agree that Bush’s tax cuts are as great as you seem to think they are. All they’ve done is substitute lower taxes now for higher taxes in the future. After all, government spending has increased by more than tax revenues have. The government can’t keep borrowing forever; we’re going to have to pay off that deficit eventually. Now if Bush had managed to reduce taxes and spending, I’d be more supportive.</p>

<p>And though I understand Friedman’s argument that doesn’t mean I agree that his theories always reflect reality.</p>

89

<p>Actually the defecit is shrinking much faster than projected by Congress and Bush administration. This is because of the tax cuts. Our deficit is now at I think 260 billion. But I do agree with you that spending shoudl be cut.</p>

<p>And do not forget that our rising GDP, rising wages, and pretty much full employment and inflation in check can be contributed to those tax cuts</p>

90

<p>Eep, sorry, like you I’m doing my homework at the same time - meant to say debt instead of deficit.</p>

<p>The true level of the deficit can range from $300 billion to the low trillions depending on how you define it (i.e. whether you include Social Security and Medicare payments). It’s [8.6</a> trillion dollar debt](<a href=“http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/]8.6”>http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) that is much more troubling and that no amount of reductions in government spending will be able to pay off, hence my saying we are merely substituting lower taxes today for higher ones tomorrow.</p>

91

<p>“Do you have unemployment or job-creation stats?”</p>

<p>I can’t find a way to give you a direct link, so here goes. Start here:
<a href=“http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln[/url]”>http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln&lt;/a&gt;
I think the data on unemployment you want is the fourth line down from the top, although it is expressed as the absolute number of unemployed and not a percentage. Check that box and click “Retrieve data” at the bottom of the page. You then get a table which is a little hard to interpret but you can see that recently unemployment has been declining since hitting a peak in July 2003. If you click the “Include Graphs” button above the table and then “Go” you will see the data presented in graphical (and to my mind, easier to understand) format.</p>

<p>Going back to the original link and going through the same process with the first item on the list, Employment Level, shows you the number of jobs in the economy. Except for a flat spot from 1/00 to 1/02, job creation has been pretty steady for the last ten years.</p>

<p>Note you can only retrieve one set of data at a time. If you select two or more you get an error message.</p>

<p>The BLS has other information that may be helpful. There is just so much of it that it is overwhelming. <a href=“http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm[/url]”>http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

92

<p>

</p>

<p>What in blazes…? The one lovely thing about the deficit is that politicians (mostly Republican, “fiscal conservatives”) like to run and say, “the deficit is falling, the deficit is falling, we’ve done it again!” – Deficits can be easily adjusted by surgically adjusting and reducing funding for certain programs – or in the case of the Republican leadership, running through the budget with a butcher knife and hacking off “unessential” things such as $12 billion in student aid, etc. Like Bananasinpyjamas stated, it’s the debt that’s worrisome – our debt continues to increase, with no means of putting a halt to the growing numbers.</p>

93

<p>I love Rangel’s reasoning of putting the costs on people who have some control over things to force “responsibility”.</p>

<p>Now if only the democrats would apply that and remove their hands from the pockets of the few and spread the tax burden a little more democratically, there might be enough votes to control the spending and borrowing.</p>

<p>The Dems would enjoy it if we could also allocate any combat burden to only those with high incomes, but they haven’t quite mastered that yet. Stealing peoples money through taxes is a lot easier than stealing their time (or worse), but I’m sure Rangel has some nice plans for attempting it. Maybe he isn’t as much of a moron as he appears.</p>

94

<p>LOL DadX (not to be confused with the many Dads here…)!</p>

<p>No Democrat in history has spent so wantonly as the Republicans currently occupying the oval and adjoining offices. Sure, give tax breaks, all the while mortgaging our children’s and grandchildren’s futures. Can’t borrow forever! </p>

<p>Good thing we have those “tax and spend” Democrats back in office, to apply a little fiscal responsibility and conservancy!!</p>

95

<p>^ well, we’ll see. ;)</p>

96

<p>Actually, 2sdad, what really “touches a nerve” with me is the collossal gullibility of the American public. I guess when you realize that a majority of Republicans who got their news from Fox Corp. actually believed that WMD’s had been found in Iraq even after it was publicly admitted that they weren’t there, it should come as no surprise that people would swallow the pathetic spin of the right wing as uncritically as you appear to have done. Here’s a chart of federal revenue (and spending) since 1962: <a href=“http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_C/c1.cfm[/url]”>http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/charts_C/c1.cfm&lt;/a&gt;
There’s no evidence of any cause and effect relationship between anything any Republican administration has done and anything but a huge increase in the national debt under the Reagan, Bush and Bush administrations. Period.</p>

<p>Here are some other facts for you to consider: In 1985, the top 1% of taxpayers received 10% of the total reported income. In 2004 - just 19 years later - that share had grown to 19% - nearly double. Their share of taxes paid only increased by 68%, though. The income split among the bottom 50% of taxpayers shrunk from over 17% to a shade over 13%. (86- 2004 figures here: <a href=“http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=129270,00.html#_pagi[/url]”>http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=129270,00.html#_pagi&lt;/a&gt; I have the '85-2003 chart stored on my computer.)</p>

<p>Our economy grows over time. It has now just barely returned to the levels of the late 1990’s, except that for everyone below the top economic strata it’s still worse. What the Bush administration is crowing about is this - “Things are almost as good as when I was elected!”</p>

<p>Except, of course, the huge deficit - and the interest payments on that debt, which consume a larger and larger share of the budget each year, and which our kids will be saddled with in perpetuity. Sure, deficit financing will give the economy a short term boost - the same is true if you take out a second mortgage on your home and put the proceeds in your checking account. For a while your household economy will boom. But borrowing to cover routine expenses is a fools game - and the last three Republican administrations have done it.</p>

<p>There’s one born every minute.</p>

97

<p>What I wonder about is this: why don’t these compulsive stat-slingers griping about the status quo just buckle down and get to work at their respective vocations–instead of constantly grousing about how well the top 10/5/1% is doing? Why not just work at getting there instead of griping all the time?</p>

<p>There is not one born every minute. We strive to get here.</p>

98

<br>

<br>

<p>Because I care about having a tax system that’s just for all. I’m already in the top whatever percent and doing fine. I still care about opportunities for people trying to get where I am.</p>

<p>Besides, it’s not all about what’s on my 2006 tax return – I will pay big time down the road if we don’t get the debt under control.</p>

99

<p>

Nice platitude, but how is the current system not just for all? Unless you’re advocating a Robin Hood system. </p>

<p>If you buckle down, you will soon find yourself among those of us who pay the majority of the income tax. Or you can just gripe about us.</p>

100

<p>Perhaps Cuba or North Korea or the former Soviet Union were more “just for all” no? Or were they too just?</p>