Dean is a first-class idiot!

When he says anything, people laugh. It's not the Argentina thing.

When you can't argue someone's point, I guess you can just resort to name calling.

Very clever.

I don't know if it is the Argentina thing, but I do know that lower taxes for the rich does not help the ecomomy. Regan tried it, Bush, Sr. had the guts to raise taxes, the economy turned around, Clinton added to those taxes by increasing the amount that the upper taxes bracket had to pay & the economy boomed. I would be glad if someone would show me where lower taxes for the rich has helped the economy?

Dean: Mean

First of all that's a totally racist thing for him to say. Does he mean that Argentinians are stupid? Is that because they are South American? Does he believe that only the rich should pay taxes? Is that not elitism run rampant?

The problem with the dems is that they only criticise. They don't explain their principles and their programs. They only want power.

Sophia

The personal tax thing could be debated for hours( I am for the tax package, but living in SF I speak from personal experience re the debatability bit- most of the people here are take- no- prisoners liberals), but there are some good things in there for small businesses, breaks that make it more feasible to expand their interests and their employee bases, thus creating jobs.
And there are enough small businesses in this country where that can make a notable percentage difference in unemployment figures.
Unfortunately, the financial straits a lot of cities and states are in are prompting their politicians, mostly of the Democrat persuasion, to raise local taxes rather than giving the cuts time to work, bringing up tax revenues on their own, and therefore nullifying the breaks given by the GWB administration and Congress.
Look for accusations that the tax cuts didn't work, not because they were bad, but because they weren't given the chance they needed.

>>Clinton added to those taxes by increasing the amount that the upper taxes bracket had to pay & the economy boomed.

Wow. All we have to do is raise taxes and our economy will get right into gear! There is nothing like false-correlations. Here's another one for you. Did you know that when Sophie last sneezed, 50 people contracted AIDS? (An equally ridiculous statement.)

Clinton was profoundly lucky, the tech boom and "Year 2000 crisis" were funneling huge amounts of liquid capital into the economy, while the stock market gains were drawing investment from every corner of the world. At the same time the lax enforcement of business regulations led us towards the Enron/Worldcom precipice --- a heavy blow to the post 9/11 economy.

To correct Sophie's dreamy fog of a memory, GB senior raised taxes and it hurt the economy--- and got him fired. Reagan's tax cuts helped the economy, but arguably not as much as JFK's tax cuts, which were wildly successful --- and very beneficial to "the rich".

The wealthy never pay taxes anyway so, at least in the case of wealthy corporations, they might as well exempt them from taxes completely. Raise corporate taxes and they just raise prices so we ordinary people end up paying either way. The only way to get around this would be with a federal sales tax but of course it will never happen because the politicians would all start bleating about "taxing the poor" not because they are actually concerned about the poor but because their wealthy contributors would never accept having to actually pay taxes the same as everyone else.

The problem with GB cutting taxes is that the U.S. already has a huge debt. By cutting taxes the deficits will increase. By increasing the deficit the debt will get even bigger.

This policy may improve the economy till GB gets re-elected. But in the future our kids will be unemployed and even more uneducated than before. And the U.S. will be closed to becoming a third world state.

The policies of GB are very short-sighted and they are only meant to improve conditions so he can get re-elected unlike his father. Even though his father didn't get re-elected he was a much better President.

Lynn S, the thing about the wealthy never paying taxes is largely a myth generated by Democrats; The same ones who live in mansions, travel first class and champion the cause of the poor around a large, sloppy bite of leg of lamb, prepared "just so". Their championing said cause is purely a vote getting theme. The only championing they do is to promote and try to expand the current welfare society. Keep giving the poor a free living, keep them dependent upon it and keep their votes.
The rich pay the highest percentage of taxes in the country(the average citizen's $3000.00 a year or whatever can translate to a taxpayer in an eight digit income bracket paying maybe $35,000,000.00 a year, after the usual writeoffs and what have you).
The Democrats will always attack the rich, who provide employment to millions of people. In their ideal world, achievers should be "punished" for success.

In The Hope

I don't know how much experience you've had in the marketplace or an Economics course, but I think it's common sense that raising taxes in a high unemployment cycle only ensures that employers will be less likely to increase staff(did you know that your employer has to match some of the taxes he takes out of your check?).
When people aren't working, they're not paying taxes, so the government has less money to fulfill their obligations. When MILLIONS of people aren't working, not only aren't they paying taxes, but millions of businesses are not making money off those people, and THEY have to lay people off, increasing the unemployment roles even further. They also pay a lot less in taxes.
When you cut taxes in times like these, it takes the load off a lot of people who ARE working and they
spend the excess, generating TAXES.
Companies take advantage of tax breaks and increased business and hire more people. These people are then paying TAXES.
When enough people are again working and again paying TAXES, the government will have more coming in by VOLUME than by overbearing taxation of a few.
That's how it works.

You're right, Seth. The problem is, we've had tax cut after tax cut, rates lowered and lowered till there's almost no rates. And people are still getting laid off. Someone needs to give these companies a huge 2by4 wack and tell them to get over it and start hiring folks again so someone can start buying their products again.

Those guys need to realize that, Lola, if for no other reason than their support of Bush. The only thing that seems to be standing in their way now, though, is the local tax increases.
Look at New York City, for example:
GWB gives tax cuts.
N.Y. State increases taxes.
N.Y. City increases taxes(meaning that they have two increases, city and state).
They have nullified the federal cuts, as I said above, and the business owners and residents are back to the precuts level.
The tax cuts are not being given the time needed to benefit private industry and create employment.

To add:

Local governments need to tighten their belts a smidgeon and stay the course long enough for the cuts to show a benefit. A team effort.
Most of them are not.

"The only championing they do is to promote and try to expand the current welfare society"

Bush is increasing agriculture subsidies - one of the greatest welfare scams of all time. The result - the consumer pays higher prices, inefficient farms are rewarded, and the third world gets screwed. Where's the conservative capitalist rhetoric when it comes to agriculture - or steel subsidies? The Europeans are worse, but that's the best excuse one can give.

The across the board tax cuts are shameful and fiscally reckless when gov't spending is increasing. Targeted cuts, like those to small business, have merit.

We can hope and pray that the economy rebounds and that the resulting tax revenues will pay off the deficit. In the meantime call it Faith Based Economics. Daddy Bush knew better, and called voodoo by its proper name.

Seth,

In theory what you say may seem right. But in this situation where spending is being increased, and the debt is already huge, cutting taxes may not have the desired effect. And if it does it will be short lived, because the debt will not disappear magically it will need to be dealt with at one point or another.

I know that some think that by cutting taxes, the economy will improve, the deficit will overnight turn into a surplus, and the debt will soon disappear. But with unpredictable spending needs for security--which are not being met at this point; it is extremely risky. I don't think playing dice with the U.S. economy is a sound decision.

If government spending was being reduced along with the tax cuts then things would be different. But since GB want to be re-elected at all costs, he is not willing to pay the political price for budget cuts. Basically, he wants "to have his cake and eat it too".

This commentary has been breathtaking. Go check out the Statistical Abstract of the USA at http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/01statab/stat-ab01.html

The rich on average pay the highest income tax rates even after the deductions.
The upper middle class and rich pay 80% of the individual income taxes.
Income taxes (individual and corporate) account for about 60% of all revenue.
Social security and other retirement taxes account for 30% of all revenue.
Excise taxes, tariffs, and all other taxes account for the rest.

Finally, we're at war with the Islamofascists and you run deficits in wartime because it's no bargain if we balance the budget only to have all of our women in burkas. Anyway, the accumulated deficit as a percentage of GDP is way lower than it was during the Cold War so we can afford it.

"you run deficits in wartime"

This is a canard. Yes, in war you run deficits as needed because of expenditures, not revenue cuts.

It is hard to take seriously the dire need for wartime deficits while appropriations for homeland defense are inadequate, yet farmers are receiving a 50% increase in their welfare. Perhaps farm subsidies can be eliminated before all our women are in burkas?

If the US is becoming like Argentina, is electing a full-cry socialist like Dean the solution?

On the continuum of things, or in reverse order of proximity to the sewer drain, there is the US, there is Germany, and there is Argentina -- a country completely ruined by socialism, trade unionism and corruption, a country where the dreams of Peron are finally coming due. Given its natural resources and the cultural origin of its population, Argentina ought to be a rich and dynamic country. That it is not speaks volumes about what their policies, similar to those espoused by Democrats, will take our nation.

I think that, slowly, we are indeed becoming like Argentina, but that we have a few cycles around the drain before we get there. Electing a socialist looter like Dean (perhaps not quite as bad as Chavez has been to Venezuela, but getting there) would only accelerate the decay.

To reverse the decay, one would have to elect a president and a Congress that are interested in cutting the size, responsibility, cost and power of government, particularly the federal government-- a group of persons much farther to the "right", in a libertarian sense, than Mr. Bush. There are few such people among Congressional Republicans; there is none on the Democrat side. Of course, there is no such candidate among the Democrat Men Who Would Be President. They, and Mr. Bush to a lesser extent, instead offer more panem et circenses, more bread and circuses to the masses.

Hi, BF. Wartime deficits aren't a canard, especially in a war that is much closer to the Cold War than World War II. We should spend a lot more on defense, and a lot more on homeland defense, and I wouldn't mind cutting farm subsidies (especially insane are the payments to tobacco farmers).

Although I don't recall the source, it seems to me that the current deficit is split about three ways between extra money for the war, lower tax revenues due to last year's mild recession, and expanded domestic spending.

The historical point is that our debt to GDP level is lower than at the end of either WW2 or the Cold War, and with very low interest rates, the current deficit, or even several years of significant deficits don't substantially weaken the fiscal health of the USA.

A tax is an instrument to raise operating capital for the government. It is not a tool of social reform. "Targeted" tax cuts necesarily favor one group of people over another. How does this square with the Constitution?

Is it alright to treat one group less fairly than another? In the same sense, is it okay to steal the rich man's car? (he can always buy another). I have never seen justifications for taxing one group of people more heavily than another that didn't have its roots in class envy. That's all I hear here as well.

As Milton Friedman has said, if you want less of something, you tax it, if you want more of something, you subsidize it. Currently our fiscal policy punishes investment, hard work and savings and encourages medical spending and unemployment.

I reject the concept that what I make belongs to the federal government. Therefore, it costs the government NOTHING to allow me to keep what I have made. Only a thief would think in those terms. Look around the board - can you spot the theives?

torpedo_eight,

The reason for higher tax brackets for the rich is that if you tax someone making $15,000 10% they may be lowered to the poverty level and may not be able to meet their basic needs; but if you tax someone making $1,000,000 10% they will still be rich. By having higher tax brackets for the rich the "pain or hit taken" is about the same for all groups.