Budget Deficit Drops Again - Tax Cuts Bring In More Revenue

[red states rule]

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal deficit has fallen from $251 billion three years ago, to $161 billion today.

As The Wall Street Journal astutely points out, that's among the fastest three-year declines ever. Ever.

What's more, as a percentage of our economy, at 1.2 percent, the deficit is half the average of the last 50 years.

Yes, that's with all that money for homeland security. And the war in Iraq. And the war in Afghanistan.

Yes, tax cuts work everytime folks



The Shrinking Deficit

We hate to be the bearers of good news, but someone's got to do it: The Congressional Budget Office has released its preliminary estimates for Fiscal Year 2007 that ended September 30, and the federal budget deficit fell again, this time by 35% to $161 billion.

There's more to applaud, if you can stand it: Since 2004, deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid three-year declines in U.S. history. The deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2%, or about half the average of the last 50 years. This improvement is especially remarkable given the $150 to $200 billion a year of post-9/11 expenses for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Americans coughed up a record $2.568 trillion in taxes to the IRS in 2007, or 6.7% more than in 2006. This means federal receipts have climbed by $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. Income, dividend and capital gains tax rates were all cut in 2003, but individual income tax receipts have soared by 46.3% in four years, with payments by the wealthy accounting for most of the windfall. Last year's increase in individual income payments was 11.3%, or more than double the rate of growth in nominal GDP. Don't worry, class warriors: Hannah Montana and others among the "new rich" are paying their taxes.

Overall federal revenue is now 18.8% of GDP, compared with the 18.2% average of the past 40 years. The nearby table shows how far off CBO was, as usual, in its static-revenue estimates that failed to anticipate the impact of taxes on incentives and growth.

The biggest surprise in fiscal 2007 was the slower growth in federal spending. CBO reports that federal outlays crept up just 2.8% last year (2.5% after adjusting for timing in payments), which was "well below the 7.3 percent average over the previous five years." The decline was largely due to lower disaster-related payments compared with Hurricane Katrina's aftermath the year before, plus the budget deal last winter that kept domestic spending stable as Congress changed hands.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189497675953035.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[KarlMarx]

This should not surprise you if you think of it this way.

1. You do not tax people, you tax economic activity. Therefore, "taxing the rich" is futile because, economically speaking, there is little they do that the Middle Class does not.
2. If you do manage to find a way to 'tax the rich', they will pass much of that cost along to the Middle Class and the poor because most of the rich earn their income from businesses they own.
3. You do not 'cut taxes', you cut tax rates. Therefore a $300 billion 'tax cut' does not have any meaning. What you really should be saying is 'a x percent cut in tax rates'.
4. Since you tax economic activity, taxes can be thought of as the price you pay to engage in economic activity. Therefore, reducing tax rates is like putting economic activities "on sale".
5. Whenever you lower the cost of something, it stimulates its demand. Therefore, if you lower the cost of economic activity, you increase the demand. Thus, buying and selling of stocks, bonds, homes etc increases.
6. Whenever you increase the demand of an economic activity, you eventually reach a point where tax revenues increase. That is because you've pushed the number of taxable events up to a point where it increases revenue.

For example:

let "N" be the number of taxable transactions before a tax rate decrease and "T" be the tax on each transaction (before a tax rate cut)

Taxable Revenue = NxT

If you decrease "T" to let's say 90% of its original value, how many more transactions must occur before you're back at the original amount of revenue? Approximately 11%.

so if you can stimulate the economy so that the number of taxable transactions increases by more than 11%, you will experience a net gain in tax revenues.

The best analogy I can come up with is a sale at Target or K-Mart. Whenever a department store has a sale on an item, the demand for the item increases. Why do they do that? To lose money? No! They actually make money, in spite of the fact that the cost per item has decreased. The same priniciple applies to taxation.

[red states rule]

This should not surprise you if you think of it this way.

1. You do not tax people, you tax economic activity. Therefore, "taxing the rich" is futile because, economically speaking, there is little they do that the Middle Class does not.
2. If you do manage to find a way to 'tax the rich', they will pass much of that cost along to the Middle Class and the poor because most of the rich earn their income from businesses they own.
3. You do not 'cut taxes', you cut tax rates. Therefore a $300 billion 'tax cut' does not have any meaning. What you really should be saying is 'a x percent cut in tax rates'.
4. Since you tax economic activity, taxes can be thought of as the price you pay to engage in economic activity. Therefore, reducing tax rates is like putting economic activities "on sale".
5. Whenever you lower the cost of something, it stimulates its demand. Therefore, if you lower the cost of economic activity, you increase the demand. Thus, buying and selling of stocks, bonds, homes etc increases.
6. Whenever you increase the demand of an economic activity, you eventually reach a point where tax revenues increase. That is because you've pushed the number of taxable events up to a point where it increases revenue.

For example:

let "N" be the number of taxable transactions before a tax rate decrease and "T" be the tax on each transaction (before a tax rate cut)

Taxable Revenue = NxT

If you decrease "T" to let's say 90% of its original value, how many more transactions must occur before you're back at the original amount of revenue? Approximately 11%.

so if you can stimulate the economy so that the number of taxable transactions increases by more than 11%, you will experience a net gain in tax revenues.

The best analogy I can come up with is a sale at Target or K-Mart. Whenever a department store has a sale on an item, the demand for the item increases. Why do they do that? To lose money? No! They actually make money, in spite of the fact that the cost per item has decreased. The same priniciple applies to taxation.



Bottom line is

Tax cuts worked for JFK

Tax cuts worked for Ronald Reagan

Tax cuts worked for Pres George W Bush

It has been proven once again, tax cuts increase revenue via increased economic activity

[KarlMarx]

Bottom line is

Tax cuts worked for JFK

Tax cuts worked for Ronald Reagan

Tax cuts worked for Pres George W Bush

It has been proven once again, tax cuts increase revenue via increased economic activity
tax cuts would work for Mickey Mouse or Hillary Clinton, too. If only they would embrace them.

Economic laws are natural ones, as are the Laws of Gravity and Relativity. They cannot be repealed no matter how hard we try.

[red states rule]

tax cuts would work for Mickey Mouse or Hillary Clinton, too. If only they would embrace them.

Economic laws are natural ones, as are the Laws of Gravity and Relativity. They cannot be repealed no matter how hard we try.

Hillary and the taxacrats do not embrace them - they detest them

Right now they want to repeal the Bush tax cuts, increase the Federal gas tax by 50 cents/gal, increase the capital gains tax to 30%, and a war tax on all wage earners

I think these add up to about $600 billion/year

And we are a 13 months away from the election

Can taxpayers afford a Pres Hillary AND a Dem Congress????????????

[diuretic]

1.You do not tax people, you tax economic activity. Therefore, "taxing the rich" is futile because, economically speaking, there is little they do that the Middle Class does not.

I don't think that's correct. Economic activity isn't being taxed, income is being taxed (and other things are taxed, depending on the tax regime in place. So saying something as nebulous as “economic activity” is being taxed doesn't make sense to me.

2.If you do manage to find a way to 'tax the rich', they will pass much of that cost along to the Middle Class and the poor because most of the rich earn their income from businesses they own.

I can't agree with that either. The rich gain income from various activities.

3.You do not 'cut taxes', you cut tax rates. Therefore a $300 billion 'tax cut' does not have any meaning. What you really should be saying is 'a x percent cut in tax rates'.

That makes sense.

4.Since you tax economic activity, taxes can be thought of as the price you pay to engage in economic activity. Therefore, reducing tax rates is like putting economic activities "on sale".

Since economic activity isn't being taxed this is moot.

5.Whenever you lower the cost of something, it stimulates its demand. Therefore, if you lower the cost of economic activity, you increase the demand. Thus, buying and selling of stocks, bonds, homes etc increases.

This doesn't make sense. The laws of demand and supply don't work that way.

6.Whenever you increase the demand of an economic activity, you eventually reach a point where tax revenues increase. That is because you've pushed the number of taxable events up to a point where it increases revenue.

There's that nebulous “economic activity” again. This still doesn't make sense.

I'm sticking my neck out a bit because I'm not informed in economics but this doesn't make sense at all.

[red states rule]

The "rich" are paying a higher percentage of taxes AFTER the tax cuts then they were BEFORE the tax cuts

When people are taxed less, they have more money for investments and risk taking

A small minority are still paying a huge majority of Federal Income taxes even with the tax cuts

[diuretic]

The "rich" are paying a higher percentage of taxes AFTER the tax cuts then they were BEFORE the tax cuts

When people are taxed less, they have more money for investments and risk taking

A small minority are still paying a huge majority of Federal Income taxes even with the tax cuts

When the rich are taxed less they don't use the money, they hoard it. There is a point at which any economic benefit is lost when it comes to giving the rich tax breaks, as I said, they simply store it, they don't use it. It's not invested, it's kept out of the wider economy.

If you earn more you should pay more in taxes, simple.

[red states rule]

When the rich are taxed less they don't use the money, they hoard it. There is a point at which any economic benefit is lost when it comes to giving the rich tax breaks, as I said, they simply store it, they don't use it. It's not invested, it's kept out of the wider economy.

If you earn more you should pay more in taxes, simple.

That is BS. They invest it. They start news companies. They risk it to make more money

Since the tax cuts, the US has had a 5 year bull market that is up nearly 90%

Since the tax cuts, tax revenues are at record highs - thus lowering the deficit

[diuretic]

Put it how you like, it just isn't true. If you want to stimulate an economy then you put the tax cuts in the middle and lower earning areas. Those are the sectors that will spend that money and in a consumer economy that activity is important. Giving the already very wealthy tax cuts is just giving them more money to keep. But if you're fine with that don't let me put you off.

[red states rule]

Sorry to bust your bubble, but the middle and lower income brackets pay a much smaller percentage of federal income taxes

Here is the data from the IRS


The table above shows that the top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $62,068) earned 67.5 percent of nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups. Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy has continued to rebound. In sum, between 2000 and 2005, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent group grew by 19.1 percent. In the same time period, pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 15.5 percent.

This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003-2005 compared to previous years.

Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI, those taxpayers with an AGI of $145,283 or more in 2005 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners. To break into the top 1 percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $364,657 or more. These numbers are up significantly from 2003 when the equivalent thresholds were $130,080 and $295,495. Top incomes in 2005 are also continuing to surpass the peak they reached in 2000. At the height of the boom and bubble, $313,469 was the threshold to break into the top 1 percent, and then it fell to $285,424 in 2002 only to finally recover fully last year.

The IRS data includes all of the 132.6 million tax returns filed in 2005 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earn enough to owe taxes. From other IRS data, we can see that 90.6 million of the tax returns came from people who paid taxes into the Treasury. That leaves 42 million tax returns filed by people with positive AGI who used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2005; but some even received more back from the IRS. This is a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which are not included in the aggregate percentile data here.

The nonpartisan, nonprofit Tax Foundation has monitored tax policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937. Best known for its annual calculation of Tax Freedom Day®, the Tax Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22652.html

[diuretic]

No bubble to be burst. That's good that the wealthy pay more taxes. And it's good that the tax burden doesn't fall on middle and lower income earners.

[darin]

No bubble to be burst. That's good that the wealthy pay more taxes. And it's good that the tax burden doesn't fall on middle and lower income earners.

Don't you care about fairness?

[red states rule]

Don't you care about fairness?

Did Karl Marx?

[diuretic]

Don't you care about fairness?

Sure I do, but "fairness" doesn't imply equal treatment in all situations, it's lot more complex than that.

[diuretic]

Did Karl Marx?

I think he did, from what I've read of his works, yes, I think he did.

[red states rule]

I think he did, from what I've read of his works, yes, I think he did.

You would. Good thing is, his ideas have been proven to be wrong

[KarlMarx]

Put it how you like, it just isn't true. If you want to stimulate an economy then you put the tax cuts in the middle and lower earning areas. Those are the sectors that will spend that money and in a consumer economy that activity is important. Giving the already very wealthy tax cuts is just giving them more money to keep. But if you're fine with that don't let me put you off.
You assume that the wealthy horde their money. The wealthy invest their money as does the Middle Class. They place their money in investments in order to make more money. They don't just stick it in a mattress.

That's where your argument starts to fall apart.

If the wealthy invest their money, that money is in the economy. Giving the rich tax cuts (as everyone else) will increase the money supply, thus boosting the economy.

[red states rule]

You assume that the wealthy horde their money. The wealthy invest their money as does the Middle Class. They place their money in investments in order to make more money. They don't just stick it in a mattress.

That's where your argument starts to fall apart.

If the wealthy invest their money, that money is in the economy. Giving the rich tax cuts (as everyone else) will increase the money supply, thus boosting the economy.

But they also spend their money. Remember when the Dems passed the "Luxury Tax" in the early 90's to saok the rich?

snip....


The 10 percent excise tax on expensive boats was imposed three years ago as a way to generate new revenue from the rich. The tax, say those in the boating industry, began having an immediate impact on sales as buyers adopted a wait-and-see attitude.

After waging a two-year battle that eventually led to the Congressional repeal of the tax in August, the boating industry now expects the repeal to have an immediate impact on sales, production and work-force levels, said Jeff W. Napier, president of the National Marine Manufacturer's Association, the principal trade group of the recreational marine industry. Recouping Losses; Not a Victory

Mr. Caruso said: "It will certainly help our industry, where activity doesn't start in the factory but on the showroom floor. Sales of boats at the retail level give manufacturers the incentive to produce. Our sales are starting to pick up a bit. And despite the recession we were not hurt too badly overall this year. Luckily, we are in an affluent area so the revenues we didn't generate in sales we were able to pretty much make up in service. And our marina was 100 percent occupied, so this season turned out to be a pretty good one for us."

But, Mr. Napier said, manufacturers don't view repeal so much as a victory as a chance to return to where they were before enactment of the tax.

"It's hard to be elated when our own government activity created a loss of 30,000 American jobs and destroyed dozens of companies in the process," Mr. Napier said. "And the revenues weren't there. For every dollar that was collected on the luxury tax, we estimated the Federal Government paid out $5 for each dollar collected in unemployment benefits and other costs caused by layoffs. Then, too, a contracting economy brought sales that were subject to the tax to a virtual standstill, causing unemployment, plant closings and foreclosures in the marine industry."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE5DC1230F930A35753C1A9659582 60

[April15]

Bottom line is

Tax cuts worked for JFK

Tax cuts worked for Ronald Reagan

Tax cuts worked for Pres George W Bush

It has been proven once again, tax cuts increase revenue via increased economic activityWe are still paying for RRs tax shift. Don't delude yourself in his being the second coming of Mohammed.

[JackDaniels]

If you want real tax reform and real spending cuts, the LAST thing you should do is vote Republican.

Republicans are tax and spend (just on different things than Dems) and believe in an exponentially big government.

[April15]

If you want real tax reform and real spending cuts, the LAST thing you should do is vote Republican.

Republicans are tax and spend (just on different things than Dems) and believe in an exponentially big government.It didn't use to be that way, but Goldwater died and the party platform did too!

[red states rule]

If you want real tax reform and real spending cuts, the LAST thing you should do is vote Republican.

Republicans are tax and spend (just on different things than Dems) and believe in an exponentially big government.

What are you smoking???

Now Dems want a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR tax increase

The trillion dollar tax fight

By: Lisa Lerer
Oct 9, 2007 06:05 AM EST

By now, everyone knows Rep. Charles B. Rangel is poised to introduce the “mother” of all tax reforms, the biggest and most expensive tax code overhaul since 1986. But what they don’t know is how the New York Democrat plans to pay the more than $1 trillion price tag — and that uncertainty is fueling rampant speculation from Capitol Hill to K Street.

The classic Washington guessing game is frustrating anxious corporate lobbyists but amusing others, including the House Ways and Means Committee chairman who started it all. “It is surprising how nervous people get when I use the words ‘fairness’ and ‘equity’ to describe our efforts to simplify the tax code and encourage economic investment,” the New York Democrat told Politico.

The fiscal fortunetellers fall into four categories: Robin Hoods, Goldilockses, Chicken Littles and Scarecrows.

The Robin Hoods predict Rangel will increase taxes on the very rich and expand breaks for the poor. Rangel’s most talked-about goal is to eradicate the alternative minimum tax, expected to hit 23 million high- and middle-income families this year.

Repealing the AMT would reduce federal tax revenue by more than $800 billion over the next 10 years — and that’s assuming the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. With the tax cuts in place, the costs would near $1 trillion.

Robin Hoods expect Rangel to swap the AMT for a new tax targeted exclusively at the highest-income payers. One often-mentioned idea, proposed by Leonard Burman, director of the Urban Institute’s Tax Policy Center, would impose a 4 percent surcharge on unmarried taxpayers making more than $100,000 a year and couples making more than $200,000.

The 4 percent tax proposal is more progressive than the AMT, Burman said, as it would place more of the tax burden on the wealthy. Almost 58 percent of the tax would be paid by taxpayers with incomes over $1 million. Under the current AMT law, the same group will pay only 8 percent of the AMT in 2010 — again, assuming the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

Burman’s idea carries more than a whiff of irony. The AMT was originally designed to increase taxes on high-income individuals. When it was first passed in 1969 — a year before Rangel came to Congress — it targeted 155 high-income taxpayers.

for the complete article
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6250.html

[April15]

What are you smoking???

Now Dems want a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR tax increase

The trillion dollar tax fight

By: Lisa Lerer
Oct 9, 2007 06:05 AM EST

By now, everyone knows Rep. Charles B. Rangel is poised to introduce the “mother” of all tax reforms, the biggest and most expensive tax code overhaul since 1986. But what they don’t know is how the New York Democrat plans to pay the more than $1 trillion price tag — and that uncertainty is fueling rampant speculation from Capitol Hill to K Street.

The classic Washington guessing game is frustrating anxious corporate lobbyists but amusing others, including the House Ways and Means Committee chairman who started it all. “It is surprising how nervous people get when I use the words ‘fairness’ and ‘equity’ to describe our efforts to simplify the tax code and encourage economic investment,” the New York Democrat told Politico.

The fiscal fortunetellers fall into four categories: Robin Hoods, Goldilockses, Chicken Littles and Scarecrows.

The Robin Hoods predict Rangel will increase taxes on the very rich and expand breaks for the poor. Rangel’s most talked-about goal is to eradicate the alternative minimum tax, expected to hit 23 million high- and middle-income families this year.

Repealing the AMT would reduce federal tax revenue by more than $800 billion over the next 10 years — and that’s assuming the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. With the tax cuts in place, the costs would near $1 trillion.

Robin Hoods expect Rangel to swap the AMT for a new tax targeted exclusively at the highest-income payers. One often-mentioned idea, proposed by Leonard Burman, director of the Urban Institute’s Tax Policy Center, would impose a 4 percent surcharge on unmarried taxpayers making more than $100,000 a year and couples making more than $200,000.

The 4 percent tax proposal is more progressive than the AMT, Burman said, as it would place more of the tax burden on the wealthy. Almost 58 percent of the tax would be paid by taxpayers with incomes over $1 million. Under the current AMT law, the same group will pay only 8 percent of the AMT in 2010 — again, assuming the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

Burman’s idea carries more than a whiff of irony. The AMT was originally designed to increase taxes on high-income individuals. When it was first passed in 1969 — a year before Rangel came to Congress — it targeted 155 high-income taxpayers.

for the complete article
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6250.html

:fu:

[red states rule]

:fu:

Liberals do hate it when they are confronted with facts

[JackDaniels]

What are you smoking???

Now Dems want a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR tax increase

The trillion dollar tax fight

By: Lisa Lerer
Oct 9, 2007 06:05 AM EST

By now, everyone knows Rep. Charles B. Rangel is poised to introduce the “mother” of all tax reforms, the biggest and most expensive tax code overhaul since 1986. But what they don’t know is how the New York Democrat plans to pay the more than $1 trillion price tag — and that uncertainty is fueling rampant speculation from Capitol Hill to K Street.

The classic Washington guessing game is frustrating anxious corporate lobbyists but amusing others, including the House Ways and Means Committee chairman who started it all. “It is surprising how nervous people get when I use the words ‘fairness’ and ‘equity’ to describe our efforts to simplify the tax code and encourage economic investment,” the New York Democrat told Politico.

The fiscal fortunetellers fall into four categories: Robin Hoods, Goldilockses, Chicken Littles and Scarecrows.

The Robin Hoods predict Rangel will increase taxes on the very rich and expand breaks for the poor. Rangel’s most talked-about goal is to eradicate the alternative minimum tax, expected to hit 23 million high- and middle-income families this year.

Repealing the AMT would reduce federal tax revenue by more than $800 billion over the next 10 years — and that’s assuming the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010. With the tax cuts in place, the costs would near $1 trillion.

Robin Hoods expect Rangel to swap the AMT for a new tax targeted exclusively at the highest-income payers. One often-mentioned idea, proposed by Leonard Burman, director of the Urban Institute’s Tax Policy Center, would impose a 4 percent surcharge on unmarried taxpayers making more than $100,000 a year and couples making more than $200,000.

The 4 percent tax proposal is more progressive than the AMT, Burman said, as it would place more of the tax burden on the wealthy. Almost 58 percent of the tax would be paid by taxpayers with incomes over $1 million. Under the current AMT law, the same group will pay only 8 percent of the AMT in 2010 — again, assuming the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

Burman’s idea carries more than a whiff of irony. The AMT was originally designed to increase taxes on high-income individuals. When it was first passed in 1969 — a year before Rangel came to Congress — it targeted 155 high-income taxpayers.

for the complete article
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6250.html

The Democrats are big government also.

But what you need to understand is that the Republicans also are the party of the big government, tax and spend.

Government has grown exponentially under Bush. Bush LOVES big government.

[red states rule]

The Democrats are big government also.

But what you need to understand is that the Republicans also are the party of the big government, tax and spend.

Government has grown exponentially under Bush. Bush LOVES big government.

and that is why Republicans lost in November

Dems on the other hand, want to break all the spending records set by Republicans - and now want a $1 trillion tax increase - for starters

[JackDaniels]

and that is why Republicans lost in November

Dems on the other hand, want to break all the spending records set by Republicans - and now want a $1 trillion tax increase - for starters

Yet when you listen to Republicans all they want is more government, more government, more government.

YOU are big government.

[red states rule]

Yet when you listen to Republicans all they want is more government, more government, more government.

YOU are big government.

Hardly - Republicans are showing signs they have learned their lesson while Dems are planning to bust the budget and my wallet

[JackDaniels]

Hardly - Republicans are showing signs they have learned their lesson while Dems are planning to bust the budget and my wallet

No, they are not even coming close. You really must not be paying attention.

[red states rule]

No, they are not even coming close. You really must not be paying attention.

I am - much to the dismay of the liberals who hate to have their agenda exposed

[JackDaniels]

I am - much to the dismay of the liberals who hate to have their agenda exposed

Your posts do not reflect the reality of big government Republicans.

[red states rule]

Your posts do not reflect the reality of big government Republicans.

I see Dems wanting more of my money for more social programs - while Republicans want to keep (and expand) the Bush tax cuts

Am I happy with Pres Bush - no. He has done some good things, but the spending and failure to secure the border has pissed me off

[JackDaniels]

I see Dems wanting more of my money for more social programs - while Republicans want to keep (and expand) the Bush tax cuts

Am I happy with Pres Bush - no. He has done some good things, but the spending and failure to secure the border has pissed me off

Bush and the other Republicans want to increase social program spending and continue increasing government, and you are falling right into their trap.

[red states rule]

Bush and the other Republicans want to increase social program spending and continue increasing government, and you are falling right into their trap.

I said I am against the increasing spending. Right now Dems are running the show and we have to many RINO's voting with Dems

[JackDaniels]

I said I am against the increasing spending. Right now Dems are running the show and we have to many RINO's voting with Dems

When why the hell do you support a party that does NOTHING but increase spending?

[red states rule]

When why the hell do you support a party that does NOTHING but increase spending?

The issues that matter the most to me are

lower taxes

fighting the war on terror

Judges on the SC

So far, they are MUCH BETTER then Dems

[JackDaniels]

The issues that matter the most to me are

lower taxes

fighting the war on terror

Judges on the SC

So far, they are MUCH BETTER then Dems

Lower taxes mattering more than cutting spending is completely idiotic, stupid and uneducated.

YOU are a watered down LIBERAL than supports the LIBERAL Republican Party...

[JackDaniels]

The issues that matter the most to me are

lower taxes

fighting the war on terror

Judges on the SC

So far, they are MUCH BETTER then Dems

And going by your avatar, you are also a fag.

[red states rule]

Lower taxes mattering more than cutting spending is completely idiotic, stupid and uneducated.

YOU are a watered down LIBERAL than supports the LIBERAL Republican Party...

you remind me of a guy who thinks it is smart to waste your vote and allow Dems to take over both Congress and the White House

[JackDaniels]

you remind me of a guy who thinks it is smart to waste your vote and allow Dems to take over both Congress and the White House

I'm a guy who refuses to vote for big government Republicans.

If you really do believe in small government (which I assume you don't have any real convictions of your own, you just mindlessly repeat things you hear on Rush and Sean Hannity) then YOU are BETRAYING your own beliefs by voting for the Republicans.

A vote for a Republican is a vote for big government. END OF STORY.

[red states rule]

I'm a guy who refuses to vote for big government Republicans.

If you really do believe in small government (which I assume you don't have any real convictions of your own, you just mindlessly repeat things you hear on Rush and Sean Hannity) then YOU are BETRAYING your own beliefs by voting for the Republicans.

A vote for a Republican is a vote for big government. END OF STORY.

So vote for Dems (or stay home and let Dems win) and get even bigger government and higher taxes?

[JackDaniels]

So vote for Dems (or stay home and let Dems win) and get even bigger government and higher taxes?

Be intellectually honest enough to vote for candidates who believe in the same policies that you do. You can vote Republican all you like -- just understand that means you are big government.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

It is still important cut all the pork out of the budget....that is where funding for "cuts" could come from....look at this chart

http://www.cagw.org/images/content/pagebuilder/185860.jpg

[darin]

As long as their is enough revenue to fund MASSIVE Federal Civ Employee Pay raises, I'm cool with it. :)

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Can taxpayers afford a Pres Hillary AND a Dem Congress???????????? I Know I Can't

[red states rule]

It is still important cut all the pork out of the budget....that is where funding for "cuts" could come from....look at this chart

http://www.cagw.org/images/content/pagebuilder/185860.jpg

2007 Pig Book - your tax dollars at work

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2007

[JackDaniels]

2007 Pig Book - your tax dollars at work

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2007

Thanks to the big government Republicans.

[diuretic]

And going by your avatar, you are also a fag.

Because a bloke likes cats he's gay???? You serious???

[red states rule]

Thanks to the big government Republicans.

Right now Dems are leading the way with Murtha and Clinton the King and Queen of pork

[JackDaniels]

Right now Dems are leading the way with Murtha and Clinton the King and Queen of pork

You just don't fucking get it. How stupid are you?

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Honestly, it is not about one party or the other...it is the fault of every elected official in Washington DC, including the POTUS...of whatever politically corrupt party he belongs to....

They sit up there for multiple terms (most of them), and decide how to spend our money.....on shit that is not the provenance of the FEDERAL government.

If a state thinks they need funds for something that is specific to the population of their governance....then they should raise the money for it.

I wonder how many bridges (in our national interest to keep open) could be fixed by using the 13.2 BILLION that is PORK in the last year? But instead, there are measures being taken right now to raise taxes (more than likely a raise in the gasoline tax) to fund this "emergency" that has been festering for decades.

[red states rule]

Honestly, it is not about one party or the other...it is the fault of every elected official in Washington DC, including the POTUS...of whatever politically corrupt party he belongs to....

They sit up there for multiple terms (most of them), and decide how to spend our money.....on shit that is not the provenance of the FEDERAL government.

If a state thinks they need funds for something that is specific to the population of their governance....then they should raise the money for it.

I wonder how many bridges (in our national interest to keep open) could be fixed by using the 13.2 BILLION that is PORK in the last year? But instead, there are measures being taken right now to raise taxes (more than likely a raise in the gasoline tax) to fund this "emergency" that has been festering for decades.



Tax cuts do not cause deficits - spending does. The US government (and state and local) are swimming in our tax money

Right now the Dems are trying to hide the pork and breaking several campaign promises they made to control pork

[diuretic]

Tax cuts do not cause deficits - spending does. The US government (and state and local) are swimming in our tax money

Right now the Dems are trying to hide the pork and breaking several campaign promises they made to control pork

Do you think it's a bit of each? I mean reducing direct income by cutting taxes is fine but there needs to be spending cuts with it or the budget blows out. But if there is no will to cut and a will to decrease income through tax reduction that seems to me to be pretty poor management.

[red states rule]

Do you think it's a bit of each? I mean reducing direct income by cutting taxes is fine but there needs to be spending cuts with it or the budget blows out. But if there is no will to cut and a will to decrease income through tax reduction that seems to me to be pretty poor management.

No. Tax cuts increase revenue everytime. They did for JFK, Ronald Reagan (revenues DOUBLED over the 8 years of Reagan to over $1 trillion) and they have for Pres Bush

Right now Dems are not cutting the pork they are adding to it - and Republcians as well, but in smaller amounts


Murtha nabs $150M pork

By Roxana Tiron

August 03, 2007

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations defense panel, has secured the most earmarked dollars in the 2008 military spending bill, followed closely by the panel’s ranking member Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.).

Even though Young secured 52 earmarks, worth $117.2 million — and co-sponsored at least $27 million worth of others — Murtha’s 48 earmarks amount to a total of $150.5 million, according to a database compiled by the watchdog organization Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS).

The House is expected to take up the $459.6 billion defense appropriations bill Friday. It contains 1,337 earmarks, costing $3.07 billion, which is less than half the number and value of earmarks in last year’s bill.

Keith Ashdown of TCS said, however, that the sum is derived from only the earmarks that the panel disclosed at the back of the bill’s report. He expects to find undisclosed projects as well.

“It appears that they are in keeping with the House commitment to reduce earmarks by 50 percent,” Ashdown said. “There are less [earmarks], but it is early and we have not looked at everything.”

The 2008 bill for “the first time gives us a snapshot [of] how the committee allocates taxpayers’ resources,” Ashdown added.

Even though the panel disclosed the project name, the requesting member, and the budget line in which the project was requested, the bill and its earmarks are not a model of transparency. The panel did not disclose either the amount requested or the companies that would benefit. TCS paired the disclosed requests in the committee report with the dollar amounts for the projects published in the bill.

This year is the first in which earmarks were disclosed under new House rules mandating that lawmakers identify their earmarks in letters to the committee certifying that they have no financial interest in the project. The report accompanying the bill contained a chart listing projects and sponsors, but not the amounts of the earmark.

Still, it is clear that the chairman and ranking member are doing well in this year’s defense-spending bill, Ashdown added.

Murtha, the defense industry’s darling, has been known throughout his tenure on the defense panel to shell out a large number of earmarks. His biggest earmark in the bill is $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), a move that sparked a fierce fight with Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), who earlier this year voted in a private meeting to strip Murtha’s earmark.

The Bush administration requested $16 million to shut down the center, which is in Murtha’s district, because it replicated the work of a similar center.

Murtha’s second highest earmark is for $15 million for a military molecular medicine initiative.

Young has several requests valued at $5 million for projects such as ballistic missile range safety technology, the Common Aero Vehicle (another missile program) and rapid-response counter-measures to chemical and biological weapons.

The embattled former Appropriations Committee chairman, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), also claims a big haul of earmark dollars, totaling $95 million. He made some requests with Reps. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) and Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), including $2 million for an integrated propulsion analysis tool, which would benefit Advatech Pacific, a company represented in Washington by Innovative Federal Strategies.

A partner of the firm is Letitia White, Lewis’s former Appropriations defense staff member. She was formerly with the firm Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White. Federal investigators are reportedly looking into the connection between Lewis, White and Bill Lowery, the lawmaker’s longtime friend. Lewis also asked for $3 million to fund the Lewis Center for Education Research.

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), one of the most senior defense appropriators, was able to secure $44 million in earmarks, including $1 million for medical technology to look into rare blood diseases. He made that request with Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.). The two also requested $5 million for a littoral sensor grid.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) got her share of pork projects — 11 projects valued at $37.3 million.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s (D-Md.) haul is $26 million.

The lion’s share of the earmarks can be found in the research, development, test and evaluation budget account. Some of the biggest requests in that account include $21.8 million for “electronic combat and counterterrorism training” by FATS Inc. of Georgia, sponsored by Jack Kingston (R-Ga). Kingston secured $55.3 million in total earmarks, some of which he made with Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) and Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.).

Another high request in the research account comes from Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who got $19 million for an “affordable weapons system,” according to Laura Peterson of TCS.

According to TCS, candidates for the non-defense earmark category include the Christian Sarkine Autism Treatment Center, which received $2.5 million from Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), the Center for Genetic Origins of Cancer at the University of Michigan, which got $3 million from Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), and $1.5 million for an eponymous project at the National Bureau for Asian Research in Seattle, sponsored by Rep. Dicks.

http://www.nowpublic.com/pork_spending_blowout

[actsnoblemartin]

maybe jack is a closet fag?


Because a bloke likes cats he's gay???? You serious???

[red states rule]

We are still paying for RRs tax shift. Don't delude yourself in his being the second coming of Mohammed.

Given the mess Pres Peanut Carter left Pres Reagan - Reagan did an incredible job of turning America around


Accomplishments During the1981-1989 Reagan Administration
1. President Reagan's economic policies stimulated the economy, creating 17 million new jobs. One-fourth of the new jobs were created in 68 consecutive months. Black unemployment was cut in half.

2. We were given incentives to save our money, to work, and to invest because of Reagan's tax reforms.

3. The inflation rate decreased to less than 4.4%. Family income rose 12%.

4. We are now experiencing the longest and strongest peacetime prosperity in the history of the nation.

5. We are experiencing the best peacetime relationship with the Soviet Union in our history. We have also seen the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.

6. We are now keeping the peace. We drew the line in Grenada, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf, and no countries have fallen to communism during the Reagan era.

7. The U.S. military was refurbished and strengthened.

8. There is now a call for prayer in schools. The Republican adminstration has been lobbying to give this deserved religious freedom.

9. We have seen a return to traditional values. Under Reagan, we have seen a cut in federal funding of abortions; emphasis on a strong family unit; and the development of family-oriented public policy.

10. Educational leaders are now working to sustain moral values and reestablish a clear understanding of right and wrong. The need for values in the curriculum has been trumpeted by the Reagan administration.

11. People from other nations are flocking to America to follow our example. Our principles of civil and economic freedom are now being copied all over the world.

America Just Prior to the Reagan Administration

1. Seven million Americans were unemployed.

2. We were told to live on less, to buckle our belts and to prepare for scarcity.

3. Americans went through two of the worst years of inflation in 60 years. There was a 13% inflation rate. Family income dropped and we had the highest tax bill in our history.

4. We were on the verge of a major recession.

5. With our cold wars during the '70s, we inspired our enemies not to be afraid of us. The Soviets refused to come to the bargaining table. Cultural exchanges between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. came to a halt.

6. Disarmament was considered a noble goal. We did not know where to draw the line in our negotiations with the Soviets. Three countries fell to communism under the Carter administration: Benin (1977), Nicaragua (1979), and Zimbabwe (1980).

7. Guns and tanks that did not even work were being sent to battle.

8. Young Americans were not allowed to pray in school ... even though Congress, every state house, and the Supreme Court begins business with prayer.

9. Progressive values became fashionable. Social policies emulated the values of a small, vocal minority.

10. Education did not sustain moral values. Educational curricula began to promote "alternative lifesyles," such as homosexuality.

11. America wore a "kick me" sign on its back. We lost our edge in technology and in global markets due to exces sive government regulation, and high taxes which devoured capital.

http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0165_Reagans_accomplishme.html

[bullypulpit]

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal deficit has fallen from $251 billion three years ago, to $161 billion today.

As The Wall Street Journal astutely points out, that's among the fastest three-year declines ever. Ever.

What's more, as a percentage of our economy, at 1.2 percent, the deficit is half the average of the last 50 years.

Yes, that's with all that money for homeland security. And the war in Iraq. And the war in Afghanistan.

Yes, tax cuts work everytime folks



The Shrinking Deficit

We hate to be the bearers of good news, but someone's got to do it: The Congressional Budget Office has released its preliminary estimates for Fiscal Year 2007 that ended September 30, and the federal budget deficit fell again, this time by 35% to $161 billion.

There's more to applaud, if you can stand it: Since 2004, deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid three-year declines in U.S. history. The deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2%, or about half the average of the last 50 years. This improvement is especially remarkable given the $150 to $200 billion a year of post-9/11 expenses for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Americans coughed up a record $2.568 trillion in taxes to the IRS in 2007, or 6.7% more than in 2006. This means federal receipts have climbed by $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. Income, dividend and capital gains tax rates were all cut in 2003, but individual income tax receipts have soared by 46.3% in four years, with payments by the wealthy accounting for most of the windfall. Last year's increase in individual income payments was 11.3%, or more than double the rate of growth in nominal GDP. Don't worry, class warriors: Hannah Montana and others among the "new rich" are paying their taxes.

Overall federal revenue is now 18.8% of GDP, compared with the 18.2% average of the past 40 years. The nearby table shows how far off CBO was, as usual, in its static-revenue estimates that failed to anticipate the impact of taxes on incentives and growth.

The biggest surprise in fiscal 2007 was the slower growth in federal spending. CBO reports that federal outlays crept up just 2.8% last year (2.5% after adjusting for timing in payments), which was "well below the 7.3 percent average over the previous five years." The decline was largely due to lower disaster-related payments compared with Hurricane Katrina's aftermath the year before, plus the budget deal last winter that kept domestic spending stable as Congress changed hands.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189497675953035.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

It's a meaningless figure as the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq are always paid for on the basis of "emergency supplementals" which are not in the budget.

[actsnoblemartin]

why arent they in the budget?


It's a meaningless figure as the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq are always paid for on the basis of "emergency supplementals" which are not in the budget.

[red states rule]

It's a meaningless figure as the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq are always paid for on the basis of "emergency supplementals" which are not in the budget.

It is always meaningless to the Taxacrats libs when proof is provided that tax cuts increase revenues

Yes libs wiol never cut the pork and stop buying votes with taxpayer money

[red states rule]

It is always meaningless to the Taxacrats libs when proof is provided that tax cuts increase revenues

Yes libs will never cut the pork and stop buying votes with taxpayer money

BTW the cost of the war was included in the final numbers - this is LAST YEARS NUMBERS

[diuretic]

maybe jack is a closet fag?

I don't much care about anyone's sexuality but it seems a bit silly to equate ownership of an animal with sexuality or any activity for that matter. Heck I used to own two horses, two dogs, two cats and two birds, did that make me want to rush out and start building an ark? :laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

2007 Pig Book - your tax dollars at work

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2007

And if you look at the graphic that was provided, pork-barrel spending exploded under the GOP controlled Congress, only dropping when the Democrats regained control. So much for the much touted and ballyhooed fiscal responsibility of the Republicans.

[actsnoblemartin]

regardless if this is true or not. YOur making this a completely partisan issue.

And hillary will put the republicans to shame if elected.


And if you look at the graphic that was provided, pork-barrel spending exploded under the GOP controlled Congress, only dropping when the Democrats regained control. So much for the much touted and ballyhooed fiscal responsibility of the Republicans.

[red states rule]

Weak Tea Indeed: Democratic Leaders Water Down Ethics & Earmark Reform Bill
July 30, 2007 10:33 AM
Porkbusters obtained the latest version of the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007’’, and as expected, the Democratic leadership has worked some funny business to dilute some of the Act's key provisions.

Based on what we're hearing from those who would know, key changes include:

The old version (passed by the Senate) required conference / committee reports to list all earmarks and required the chairman of the relevant committee to distribute the earmark list. But the new version of the bill allows the Majority Leader (as opposed to the Senate parliamentarian, a more objective judge) to determine whether or not a conference report complies with the disclosure requirements.
The new version removes the requirement for earmark lists posted online to be in searchable format.
The new version removes the provision that prevented any bill from being considered at all prior to the disclosure of earmarks; now the text only prohibits a formal motion to proceed, which leaves open a procedural loophole that would allow bills to slip through without disclosure.
The old version prohibited earmarks which benefit a Member, their staff, or their family/their staff’s family. The new version waters that down and only prohibits earmarks that would “only” affect those parties --- which means so long as you can make a case that your shiny new project affects at least one person other than you positively, you’re all set.
But don't take our word for it: you can download a PDF of the new text right here. Check it out, and if you find more nasty surprises in there, please leave a comment and tell us what you've discovered...

More: Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) just released a statement blasting the changes:

“There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors in the new ethics bill, but upon a close look its obvious that earmark transparency reforms have been eviscerated. Senator Reid has given himself and a few committee chairmen the authority to determine whether congressional earmarks have been properly disclosed to the public. My office has confirmed this with the Senate Parliamentarian. Under this bill, the American people would be forced to trust Senator Reid and Senator Byrd – two of the biggest earmarkers in the Senate – to certify earmark disclosure. This bill allows the fox to guard the henhouse and makes a joke of ethics reform.”
“I will offer an amendment to this bill to restore real earmark reform, and I hope all of my colleagues will support it. The culture of earmarks is what drives the culture of corruption, and if we don’t fix the earmark rules in this bill, we will continue to have business as usual in Washington.”

“This bill is nothing more than the status quo, allowing every chairman to decide whether to disclose earmarks or not. Senator Byrd has already ‘certified’ that he is complying with disclosure now, but an independent group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, already showed that $7.5 billion in earmarks have been undisclosed. The favor factory is still open and ready for business.”


http://porkbusters.org/

[red states rule]

and how did the liberal media report the deficit drop?

Some did not - they ignored it


2 of 3 'Newspapers of Record' Fail to Record Federal Fiscal-Year Deficit News
By Tom Blumer | October 14, 2007 - 09:28 ET

The Heritage Foundation's Robert Bluey reported in his Sunday Townhall column that there was disinterest at the hallowed "newspapers of record" in the government's news about the just-ended fiscal year's deficit (links to White House deficit announcement and to Business and Media Institute report are in the original):

The U.S. budget deficit fell to the lowest level in five years last week, but three of America’s leading newspapers -- the New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times -- couldn’t find the space to mention the dramatic drop.

Journalists who have spent years trashing President Bush’s tax cuts appeared to suddenly lose interest when the budget picture brightened. That’s not surprising, however, considering that mainstream reporters frequently ignore upbeat economic news.

For 49 straight months, dating back to August 2003, the U.S. economy has added jobs. More than 8 million, in fact. Yet the only time economic news seems to hit the front page is when there’s something bad to report. No wonder Bush gets little credit.


See for yourself at the NY Times, the Post, and the LA Times (search is on "deficit billion" -- not in quotes):

The Post's Neil Irwin wrote a 600-word article ("Economy Signals Damage Control") about supposedly weak retail sales (you're wrong, Neil -- they were "stronger than expected") and the deficit. But it was the trade deficit and not the US budget deficit, which Irwin ignored. The Post did carry the uncharacteristically balanced deficit coverage of the Associated Press's Martin Crutsinger, but apparently only online, as there is no print edition page indicator at the link.
Bluey had one minor oversight, as the New York Times did carry a one-paragraph Associated Press item -- on Page A22 in the October 12 print edition. That hardly counts as "All the News That's Fit to Print," especially considering that the Times, like the Post, also did an in-house piece on the trade deficit.
The LA Times had no report relating to the federal budget deficit. That's like the paper's sports editor deciding not to report on the previous night's Dodgers game because it wasn't interesting.
Does anyone seriously believe that the news would have been almost completely ignored if the deficit had instead gone up?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2007/10/14/2-3-newspapers-record-fail-record-federal-fiscal-year-deficit-news

[JackDaniels]

A post like this shows exactly why Republicans in this country are so dense, and lie about their true intentions.

Here's a question for you Republicans to answer:

If you cared about small and limited government, and cutting spending, why also then care so much about tax revenues?

[PostmodernProphet]

pork-barrel spending exploded under the GOP controlled Congress, only dropping when the Democrats regained control

actually, the reason the 2007 numbers were lower was that only 2 of 11 appropriations bills have been passed.....I recall reading that there had been $31 billion in earmark requests.....

[actsnoblemartin]

Excellent work rsr. You dont just cut and paste, you actuallly find very good articles, in the words of borat, nice!


According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal deficit has fallen from $251 billion three years ago, to $161 billion today.

As The Wall Street Journal astutely points out, that's among the fastest three-year declines ever. Ever.

What's more, as a percentage of our economy, at 1.2 percent, the deficit is half the average of the last 50 years.

Yes, that's with all that money for homeland security. And the war in Iraq. And the war in Afghanistan.

Yes, tax cuts work everytime folks



The Shrinking Deficit

We hate to be the bearers of good news, but someone's got to do it: The Congressional Budget Office has released its preliminary estimates for Fiscal Year 2007 that ended September 30, and the federal budget deficit fell again, this time by 35% to $161 billion.

There's more to applaud, if you can stand it: Since 2004, deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid three-year declines in U.S. history. The deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2%, or about half the average of the last 50 years. This improvement is especially remarkable given the $150 to $200 billion a year of post-9/11 expenses for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Americans coughed up a record $2.568 trillion in taxes to the IRS in 2007, or 6.7% more than in 2006. This means federal receipts have climbed by $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. Income, dividend and capital gains tax rates were all cut in 2003, but individual income tax receipts have soared by 46.3% in four years, with payments by the wealthy accounting for most of the windfall. Last year's increase in individual income payments was 11.3%, or more than double the rate of growth in nominal GDP. Don't worry, class warriors: Hannah Montana and others among the "new rich" are paying their taxes.

Overall federal revenue is now 18.8% of GDP, compared with the 18.2% average of the past 40 years. The nearby table shows how far off CBO was, as usual, in its static-revenue estimates that failed to anticipate the impact of taxes on incentives and growth.

The biggest surprise in fiscal 2007 was the slower growth in federal spending. CBO reports that federal outlays crept up just 2.8% last year (2.5% after adjusting for timing in payments), which was "well below the 7.3 percent average over the previous five years." The decline was largely due to lower disaster-related payments compared with Hurricane Katrina's aftermath the year before, plus the budget deal last winter that kept domestic spending stable as Congress changed hands.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189497675953035.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[JackDaniels]

A post like this shows exactly why Republicans in this country are so dense, and lie about their true intentions.

Here's a question for you Republicans to answer:

If you cared about small and limited government, and cutting spending, why also then care so much about tax revenues?

I'm still waiting for an answer to this question.

[JackDaniels]

Still waiting.

[glockmail]

A post like this shows exactly why Republicans in this country are so dense, and lie about their true intentions.

Here's a question for you Republicans to answer:

If you cared about small and limited government, and cutting spending, why also then care so much about tax revenues?

Still waiting for a guy in the hospital to answer you?

We care about increased revenues because it proves that cutting taxes increase them. The increase allows us to pay for all the screw-ups that the Democrats have gotten us into.

[JackDaniels]

Still waiting for a guy in the hospital to answer you?

We care about increased revenues because it proves that cutting taxes increase them. The increase allows us to pay for all the screw-ups that the Democrats have gotten us into.

Wow. That's a weak argument.

The FACT of the matter is that if you truly cared about CUTTING government, you shouldn't care about increasing revenue. End of story.

[JackDaniels]

Still waiting for a guy in the hospital to answer you?

If you had any reading comprehension, you'd see I said "Here is a question for you Republicans"....not any specific member.

Please learn to read.

[glockmail]

Wow. That's a weak argument.

The FACT of the matter is that if you truly cared about CUTTING government, you shouldn't care about increasing revenue. End of story.

What we conservatives care about is increasing revenue relative to the tax rate, which should always be as low as possible, as allowing people to keep more of what they earn is an important measure of freedom.

[JackDaniels]

What we conservatives care about is increasing revenue relative to the tax rate, which should always be as low as possible, as allowing people to keep more of what they earn is an important measure of freedom.

Funny, the Republican public policy proposals do NOT reflect this belief.

[glockmail]

Funny, the Republican public policy proposals do NOT reflect this belief. Not so funny that the GOP is not ruled by conservatives.

[JackDaniels]

Not so funny that the GOP is not ruled by conservatives.

Yet you who call yourself "conservatives" continue to support the big government Republican Party

[glockmail]

Yet you who call yourself "conservatives" continue to support the big government Republican Party
Lesser of two evils.

[JackDaniels]

Lesser of two evils.

Is, by definition, evil.

[glockmail]

Is, by definition, evil.
Either you dance with the devil or you don't dance.

[JackDaniels]

Either you dance with the devil or you don't dance.

Or you could vote according to your own beliefs instead of supporting a party which does not share your values.

[glockmail]

Or you could vote according to your own beliefs instead of supporting a party which does not share your values. That's what conservatives do. When I was an active member in the NY Conservative Party we would regularly interview Democrats for possible endorsement. Some would qualify over their GOP opponent. However most were from the GOP. That clearly shows a trend of the two parties.

[JackDaniels]

That's what conservatives do. When I was an active member in the NY Conservative Party we would regularly interview Democrats for possible endorsement. Some would qualify over their GOP opponent. However most were from the GOP. That clearly shows a trend of the two parties.

It's painfully obvious that you really don't understand the way our political system works, because it's common knowledge in poli sci circles that this behavior by the NY Con party is exactly the reason they are irrelevant and don't matter in NY politics.

[glockmail]

It's painfully obvious that you really don't understand the way our political system works, because it's common knowledge in poli sci circles that this behavior by the NY Con party is exactly the reason they are irrelevant and don't matter in NY politics. Yes that's why you have candidates lining up to be evaluated by the Conservative Party, because they are "irrelevant". :rolleyes:

The fact is that there is a significant percentage of NYS voters who rely on that endorsement, and who pull the "C" lever in the voting booth by default.

[JackDaniels]

Yes that's why you have candidates lining up to be evaluated by the Conservative Party, because they are "irrelevant". :rolleyes:

The fact is that there is a significant percentage of NYS voters who rely on that endorsement, and who pull the "C" lever in the voting booth by default.

And the fact that the Conservative Party of NY has been so unsuccessful shows their irrelevance.

[glockmail]

And the fact that the Conservative Party of NY has been so unsuccessful shows their irrelevance. Their sucess is proven by their significant numbers and the fact that they consistently get candidates on the ballot. Not so for the Liberal or the Libertarian Parties.

[JackDaniels]

Their sucess is proven by their significant numbers and the fact that they consistently get candidates on the ballot. Not so for the Liberal or the Libertarian Parties.

An honest observer of politics knows your statement to be either completely uneducated and dumb, or a complete lie.

[glockmail]

An honest observer of politics knows your statement to be either completely uneducated and dumb, or a complete lie.
If that were true, you would know neither. :lame2:

[JackDaniels]

If that were true, you would know neither. :lame2:

Very typical response from someone of your intelligence.