GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS!
In 1992 during an economic downturn Bill Clinton was elected president. During the campaign Bill had promised a tax cut for the middle class if elected. However in Feb 1993 when Bill addressed a Joint Session of Congress. He presented a plan to reduce the deficit rather than a middle class tax cut. This plan would raise taxes on higher income brackets and included a surtax for incomes over $250,000. For incomes less than $30,000 there was no change. It eliminated income taxes on 15 million of the lowest income families.
The purpose Bill said was that a smaller Federal budget deficit would reduce bond interest rates. It is said Robert Rubin the Secretary of the Treasury persuaded Bill to take the debt reduction route rather than the middle class tax cut.
The result was the longest period of economic expansion in American History. After 8 yrs of Presidency Bill left office in 2000 with a 65% approval rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2000 George Bush was elected President. George inherited a balanced Federal budget with a large surplus.
George believed in a smaller role for gov’t and depended on unregulated market forces to govern the economy. In 2001 and 2003 Bush obtained Congressional approval for large tax cuts. The 2001 tax cut was $1.35 trillion. These tax cuts decreased all tax rates, decreased the capital gains tax, increased the child tax credit, and eliminated the “marriage penalty. Economists figure the tax cuts from 2001 to 2007 resulted in an increase of $3 trillion in Federal debt,(constant 2000 $) Since 2007 the debt has increased substantially. Together the tax cuts and war(Iraq, Afghanistan) have accounted for 84% of the debt increase according to Richard Kogan and Matt Fiedler. Over this period excluding home equity extraction the US economy grew 1% during the Bush years as figured by Niall Ferguson. George left office in 2008 amidst the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression of 1929 with an approval rating of 28%.
How have these two different approaches effected Job GROWTH?
1990 thru 1999 Clinton yrs 1999 thru 2009 Bush yrs
21.3 Million new jobs --940,000 jobs lost
How about economic growth?
1990 thru 1999 Clinton yrs 1999 thru 2009 Bush yrs
4% growth per yr 1% growth per yr
PERHAPS THE BEST ECONOMIC PLAN IS TO JUDICIOUSLY RAISE TAXES.! Not cut taxes.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Saturday, September 18, 2010
CUTTING TAXES A NON-STARTER
CUTTING TAXES THE BEDROCK OF THE NEW CONSERVATISM IS A NON-STARTER. Get the fact behind the news
Economic research suggests that tax cuts, though difficult for politicians to resist in election season, have limited ability to bolster the flagging economy because they are essentially a supply-side remedy for a problem caused by lack of demand.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that EXTENDING TAX CUTS WOULD BE THE LEAST EFFECTIVE WAY TO SPUR THE ECONOMY and reduce unemployment. The report added that TAX CUTS FOR HIGH EARNERS WOULD HAVE THE SMALLEST “bang for the buck” WEALTHY AMERICANS ARE MORE LIKELY TO SAVE THEIR MONEY THAN SPEND IT. The office gave HIGHER MARKS TO A PROPOSAL now embraced by President Obama, THAT WOULD ALLOW SMALL BUSINESSES TO WRITE OFF 100%OF THEIR INVESTMENT COSTS, NEITHER of those options, though, would do as much TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY as offering DIRECT PAYMENTS TO THE UNEMPLOYED and SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS or REDUCING the PAYROLL TAXES OF WORKERS,the study found. OTHER PROPOSALS RECOMMENDED WERE AID TO STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES.
So while THE DECISION on WHETHER TO EXTEND the TAX CUTS will have a lasting impact on the deficit and on how the nation’s tax burden is distributed, ECONOMISTS AND TAX EXPERTS SAY IT IS UNLIKELY TO GIVE MUCH IMMEDIATE RELIEF FOR HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT AND SLOW ECONOMIC GROWTH. “Firms don’t hire based on tax breaks; they hire based on demand,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “So a lot of the tax breaks are likely to be rewarding people and companies for that they were going to do anyway.” When they were signed into law in 2001 and 2003, the huge package of income and capital gains tax reductions that became known as the Bush tax cuts were hailed as a way distribute the government surplus and promote long-term economic growth. Mr. Bush was so confident in their power to generate business growth and revenue that he predicted they would enable the government to pay down $1 trillion in debt in just four years.
Those surpluses have now become crushing deficits because of a combination of factors, including the recession, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Medical Prescription drug benefit, UNFUNDED, and the $1.7 trillion in forgone revenue from from the tax cuts themselves.
The Obama administration figures that nearly a third of the cost of the tax cuts — more than $700 billion during the next decade — would go to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Essentially arguing "that we add $700 billion to the deficit in return for $35 billion in what has been found to be the least effective means of stimulus,” said Jason Furman, a deputy assistant to the president overseeing economic policy.
Mr. Obama’s proposal would preserve the tax cuts for families that earn less than $250,000 a year (or individuals who make less than $200,000) at a cost of $2.8 trillion over the next decade.
Edward D. Kleinbard, former chief of staff of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, said the reliance on tax expenditures had distorted the budget process because it induced the public to overlook the fact that — unless they are accompanied by spending reductions — tax cuts have the same effect on the deficit as additional spending. It also allows politicians to make unsubstantiated claims about the power of tax-cutting to accomplish other economic goals, he said.
THE THOUGHT THAT TAX CUTS PAY FOR THEMSELVES OR TAX CUTS ALONE CAN TURN AROUND THE ECONOMY IS WISHFUL THINKING said Mr. Kleinbard, now a law professor at the University of Southern California. “The debate has become so unrealistic it makes you want to scream.”
Economic research suggests that tax cuts, though difficult for politicians to resist in election season, have limited ability to bolster the flagging economy because they are essentially a supply-side remedy for a problem caused by lack of demand.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that EXTENDING TAX CUTS WOULD BE THE LEAST EFFECTIVE WAY TO SPUR THE ECONOMY and reduce unemployment. The report added that TAX CUTS FOR HIGH EARNERS WOULD HAVE THE SMALLEST “bang for the buck” WEALTHY AMERICANS ARE MORE LIKELY TO SAVE THEIR MONEY THAN SPEND IT. The office gave HIGHER MARKS TO A PROPOSAL now embraced by President Obama, THAT WOULD ALLOW SMALL BUSINESSES TO WRITE OFF 100%OF THEIR INVESTMENT COSTS, NEITHER of those options, though, would do as much TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY as offering DIRECT PAYMENTS TO THE UNEMPLOYED and SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS or REDUCING the PAYROLL TAXES OF WORKERS,the study found. OTHER PROPOSALS RECOMMENDED WERE AID TO STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES.
So while THE DECISION on WHETHER TO EXTEND the TAX CUTS will have a lasting impact on the deficit and on how the nation’s tax burden is distributed, ECONOMISTS AND TAX EXPERTS SAY IT IS UNLIKELY TO GIVE MUCH IMMEDIATE RELIEF FOR HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT AND SLOW ECONOMIC GROWTH. “Firms don’t hire based on tax breaks; they hire based on demand,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “So a lot of the tax breaks are likely to be rewarding people and companies for that they were going to do anyway.” When they were signed into law in 2001 and 2003, the huge package of income and capital gains tax reductions that became known as the Bush tax cuts were hailed as a way distribute the government surplus and promote long-term economic growth. Mr. Bush was so confident in their power to generate business growth and revenue that he predicted they would enable the government to pay down $1 trillion in debt in just four years.
Those surpluses have now become crushing deficits because of a combination of factors, including the recession, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Medical Prescription drug benefit, UNFUNDED, and the $1.7 trillion in forgone revenue from from the tax cuts themselves.
The Obama administration figures that nearly a third of the cost of the tax cuts — more than $700 billion during the next decade — would go to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Essentially arguing "that we add $700 billion to the deficit in return for $35 billion in what has been found to be the least effective means of stimulus,” said Jason Furman, a deputy assistant to the president overseeing economic policy.
Mr. Obama’s proposal would preserve the tax cuts for families that earn less than $250,000 a year (or individuals who make less than $200,000) at a cost of $2.8 trillion over the next decade.
Edward D. Kleinbard, former chief of staff of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, said the reliance on tax expenditures had distorted the budget process because it induced the public to overlook the fact that — unless they are accompanied by spending reductions — tax cuts have the same effect on the deficit as additional spending. It also allows politicians to make unsubstantiated claims about the power of tax-cutting to accomplish other economic goals, he said.
THE THOUGHT THAT TAX CUTS PAY FOR THEMSELVES OR TAX CUTS ALONE CAN TURN AROUND THE ECONOMY IS WISHFUL THINKING said Mr. Kleinbard, now a law professor at the University of Southern California. “The debate has become so unrealistic it makes you want to scream.”
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Who is Financing the Tea Party?
How many people at the rally knew who is bankrolling TEA Party activities? GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS.
RUPERT MURDOCK owner of Fox News and Publisher of the Wall St. Journal is one of the principal bank rollers. Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are on his payroll. Fox news gives the Tea Party plenty of free publicity and news exposure. Koch(see Below) matched the proceeds from a Fox Tea party promotion.
The other principal bank rollers are two brothers, less well known, Charles and Edward Koch. These two brothers have a combined wealth exceeded only by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Their original wealth came from the oil business. They have branched out into several other businesses .
These two men have along history of financial support for far right political causes. Their interest is low or no taxes, no corporate regulation, no effective labor unions, and no help for the poor, unemployed, ill or elderly. When David Koch ran for VP on the Libertarian ticket in 1980 his platform wanted to abolish Social Security, federal regulatory agencies, and welfare, the CIA, the FBI and the public school system. The Koch's founded "Americans for Prosperity" Foundation which works closely with the Tea Party since the Tea Party started
Be careful voters you may get what you asked and voted for.
Another major sponsor for the Tea party is Dick Armey"s "Freedom Works" group which received $12 mil from the Koch family foundation. From 1998 to 2008 the Koch foundation gave at least $196 mil a large share of which went to conservative causes and groups. In addition Koch industries spent $50 mil for lobbying activities, and $4.8 mil in campaign contributions thru political action committees. Among energy co's Koch Industries spent more than Exxon, Mobile and Chevron.
Be careful voters you may get what you asked and voted for.
RUPERT MURDOCK owner of Fox News and Publisher of the Wall St. Journal is one of the principal bank rollers. Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are on his payroll. Fox news gives the Tea Party plenty of free publicity and news exposure. Koch(see Below) matched the proceeds from a Fox Tea party promotion.
The other principal bank rollers are two brothers, less well known, Charles and Edward Koch. These two brothers have a combined wealth exceeded only by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Their original wealth came from the oil business. They have branched out into several other businesses .
These two men have along history of financial support for far right political causes. Their interest is low or no taxes, no corporate regulation, no effective labor unions, and no help for the poor, unemployed, ill or elderly. When David Koch ran for VP on the Libertarian ticket in 1980 his platform wanted to abolish Social Security, federal regulatory agencies, and welfare, the CIA, the FBI and the public school system. The Koch's founded "Americans for Prosperity" Foundation which works closely with the Tea Party since the Tea Party started
Be careful voters you may get what you asked and voted for.
Another major sponsor for the Tea party is Dick Armey"s "Freedom Works" group which received $12 mil from the Koch family foundation. From 1998 to 2008 the Koch foundation gave at least $196 mil a large share of which went to conservative causes and groups. In addition Koch industries spent $50 mil for lobbying activities, and $4.8 mil in campaign contributions thru political action committees. Among energy co's Koch Industries spent more than Exxon, Mobile and Chevron.
Be careful voters you may get what you asked and voted for.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Pres.Eisenhower on Social Safety Net
The Facts Behind the News
A statement by President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) concerning America's Social Safety Net.
The original passage, from a letter Eisenhower wrote to his brother Edgar on November 8, 1954, went as follows" :
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things.
Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
A statement by President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) concerning America's Social Safety Net.
The original passage, from a letter Eisenhower wrote to his brother Edgar on November 8, 1954, went as follows" :
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.
There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things.
Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)