Dealing with the Sunset of the Bush Tax Cuts (Part I)
by Linda Beale
Excerpts from Linda’s post
Dealing with the Sunset of the Bush Tax Cuts (Part I) at Ataxingmatter:
As the fall rolls in, Congress is expected to focus its attention on the fact that the huge tax cuts enacted under Bush (mostly in the 2001 and 2003 bills, but also in other bills during the Bush regime) were set up with sunsetting provisions.
…
This is a topic that is starting to heat up and is getting lots of media attention. Not surprisingly, there are also lots of groups busy trying to spin the discussion to suit their socio-political objectives, whether or not the spin informs voters accurately about the issues. Therefore, it seems that this is a good time to attempt to cover the debate from various perspectives through a series of articles. I expect to pick up various releases and “reports” from think tanks and groups and dissect them. Are they using more rhetoric than analysis? Are they using language that will tend to bias the reader rather than providing a firm foundation in information? What can we really expect if Congress enacts new tax cuts to “extend” the Bush tax cuts? What can we really expect if Congress does not enact new tax cuts but instead allows the current law to operate as intended?
…
Let’s look at an example of the kind of rhetoric that is flying through the blogosphere these days. I received a missive from “Melissa Kay” at a PR firm (Market Builders PR) that has pushed out various press releases about right-wing speakers to me in recent months. It is pushing Alan Olsen, the managing partner at Greenstein Rogoff Olsen & Co. LLP, CPAs and his views of what will happen “if Bush Tax Cuts Are Eliminated”. The piece (no link provided) is called “Enjoy Them While They Last: End of Bush Tax cuts Could Throw U.S. into Deeper Recession.”the initial heading is misleading (“Alan’s Predictions if Bush Tax Cuts Are Eliminated”)–the Bush tax cuts were set up to be temporary and expire by operation of law. Nobody has to do anything to “eliminate” the tax cuts.
The first paragraph is misleading.
here’s what it says: “Almost every tax cut implemented by Bush will disappear in 2011. Clinton raised taxes to 39%, Bush dropped the top tax rate to 36%. Obama will take it back to slightly more than 39%.”here’s why it is misleading: Bush didn’t just drop the top tax rate. Bush dropped the top tax rate to 36% and then also raised the top tax rate up to 39% with an effective date of January 1, 2011.
The first bullet point is misleading.
Here’s what it says: “What we have now is a war of free enterprise. The end of the Bush tax cuts in 2010 could throw us into a deeper recession.”Here’s why it is misleading.
First, there is no “war of free enterprise.”…
Second, there’s really very little evidence to support the speculation that the slated expiration of the Bush tax cuts will “throw us into a deeper recession.” In fact, the flow of funds to the federal government and use of those funds for unemployment compensation and other state aid as well as public infrastructure projects could save us from entering into a depression. We are a very lightly taxed nation…
So, you have an unsubstaniated kind of views about the effect of experation of the tax cuts.
Why doesn’t anyone do the homework and go line by line checking our tax structure vs nations we are competing against?
It’s all a guess as how this effects employment which is a big effect on stuff like social security, tax revenue, trade deficits exc.
Still, show the righteous indignation of all the partisan hacks out there.
Saying this: “First, there is no “war of free enterprise.”…” just shows the mind numbing denial that is going on. How manhy policies have been implemented that support business creation and growth? I’ll just wait on the sidelines while you create your list, but, after it is created please provide measurements of each of their successes.
BTW, only slightly off topic, but New applications for unemployment insurance reached 500K for the week?????? I just heard Laffer make this statement: ” You can’t love jobs while hating those who create them.”
So how much truth is there in the quote I provided above?
Linda,
Your comment at the end:
“In fact, the flow of funds to the federal government and use of those funds for unemployment compensation and other state aid as well as public infrastructure projects could save us from entering into a depression. “
We can do that now, reguardless of action on the forthcoming tax hikes, but Obama and the Dems are not doing so. Wasn’t that what the stimulous was for???
You make it sound like we can’t do that right now. But, yes, we can! (BTW, How’s that working out so far?)
Islam will change
I am not a numbers guy. If I was I could get paid for pontificating. I do try and learn from the past, however, and based on Mike Kimmel’s research, it does not appear that tax increases act as much of a brake on the economy. Of course people will point to both JFK and Reagan’s tax cuts as indicating that tax cuts can stimulate the economy. First, in both instances we started from a much higher base. Second, while I have no particular recollection of how JFK’s tax cuts worked, I do know that for me personally, my taxes increased under Reagan because he took away a bunch of middle class deductions and increased social security taxes. Third after trashing the economy–actually Volker did it–any recovery seemed like a wonderful thing and Reagan for his time was a huge deficit spender. Finally, whatever merit tax cuts might have in combination with deficit spending at some points on the tax continum, Dumbya’s tax cuts proved once and for all that they are not a panacea–we got rapidly growing deficits and stagnation for all but the most well to do Americans. My sense is that the only argument against more stimulus that has gained any traction is the idea that we can not afford it. I absolutely believe that the government has to do more to make up for the shortfall in demand and to keep the deficits within reason think all of Dumbya’s tax cuts should be allowed to expire. At some point, I could see reducing the corporate rate to be more competitive with other countries, but see no reason to keep low capital gains or dividend rates.
The conservatives like to point out that the bottom half of the taxpayers pay 4% of the taxes (I assume they mean only income taxes).
For many years now, more people have paid more in FICA taxes than in income taxes.
What does that tell you?
It tells you the middle class is shrinking.
Capitalism can flourish only with a blossoming middle class.
In a paper published by EBRI in May 2010:
According to a 2007 Survey of Consumer Finances, the top 10% of households own 72.3% of all financial assets.
The wealth is too concentrated to adequately provide governmental revenues, even if we should let the tax cuts expire.
Go to: http://www.ebri.org/pdf/notespdf/EBRI_Notes_05-May10.IAs.pdf.
Page 3
Don Levit
“In fact, the flow of funds to the federal government and use of those funds for unemployment compensation and other state aid as well as public infrastructure projects could save us from entering into a depression.”
You can leave out “the flow of funds to the federal government and use of those funds for”. Reshuffling money can help some, but people need to save and reduce their debt. That means (since we are not going to suddenly become a net exporting nation) that we need high deficits to supply the money for the people to do that.
However, looking into the future, don’t we need higher maximum tax rates as a part of counter-cyclical policy? Allowing them to rise to a mere 39% from 36% is probably a good idea. They were higher under Reagan, and arguably should have been higher to help provide stability on the upside.
“I just heard Laffer make this statement: ” You can’t love jobs while hating those who create them.”
That’s true. Who is creating jobs now?
We don’t have to wonder whether a top tax rate of 39% would be so egregiously high that it would be a damper on economic activity. We simply have to look at times in our history where rates were this high.
Guess what? We don’t have to look back very far. The economy did very nicely under these rates in the 90’s. In fact, if you look a little further back the economy faired very nicely under top rates in excess of 70%.
Next question.
I’m afraid that buffy is half right. It is no justification of a tax hike to argue that we could ues the money for good purposes. The only justification that is a real justification along those lines is to legislate the two together. That’s what PAYGO is all about. Buffy is only half right because he willfully ignores the obstruction of the GOP, which has become automatic in the Senate, and works extremely well. This is the first time in US history that a 60-vote caucus is needed to pass the majority of legislation. Pretending otherwise is simply dishonest.
That said – and it needs to be said, because buffy does tend to be mighty dishonest about politics and blame – the Democrats can’t be credited even with trying and failing if they don’t try. There have been some major watered-down successes, so Obama and the Democrats deserve some major watered-down credit. That credit doesn’t extend far, though. When is the Majority Leader going to require actual filibusters? I want my political theater. I also think I have some Kimberly-clark in my 402(k), and a filibuster is going to be good for Depends sales.
k,
Dems had the 60 votes up until January 2010.
Bigger stimulus?
Single-payer?
FinReg?
Cap & trade?
While the timing of the last 3 was/is post Scott Brown, had the Dems not wanted political aircover from “bi-partisanship”, HC could have been passed last summer and at least one of the other two could have been passed with the 60 Dems prior to Brown.
The link to Linda’s post is broken.
By the way, we all do recognize that the “war on the private sector” is the latest lock-step propaganda effort from the right-wing spin machine, yes? For those who don’t have time to scan the production of the usual suspects, there is an easy rule of thumb that works extremely well. If CoRev defends a particular turn of phrase, it’s part of the lock-step propaganda effort.
Lets’ think through the major efforts under Obama. Health care legislation. Financial regulation. Stimulus. Health insurance as now structured in the US is paid for largely through public programs and private payrolls. The private payroll side of it means that private firms will be involved whenever there is a change. The top ranks at private firms don’t like change they can’t control any more than anybody else. I suspect that they may like it a bit less, as a reflection of the personality that puts one in the top ranks of such firms. Financial regulation takes on some of the most powerful private firms in the nation, and the sector that has taken over a larger share of the economy than since the Guilded Age, if not since forever. Health care has taken on some of the most powerful interests in the nation, many of which are also in the financial sector. Anybody naive enough to take their pushback efforts at face value – mouthing the “war on the private sector” – is pretty naive. And might want to take a gander at what the financial sector has done to other parts of the “private sector” in recent years. Same for health insurers.
Oh, and by the way, do we know who Olsen’s clients are?
Oh, I left out stimulus. Lots of goodies for private firms. The stimulus plan was not the WPA. The federal government did not go out and hire and purchase and build. The federal government provided tax breaks to private firms. It gave the states infrastructure money to spend, mostly through private firms. “War on the private sector” involved putting billions of dollars into private firms. You have to be stupid to believe this administration is opposed to private enterprise in general. You have to be corrupt to try to tell others this administration is opposed to private enterprise in general.
buff,
What about the stimulus was enough to stimulate anything?
How much of it was a tax cut? Was that even useful and should it be lumped as stimulus?
And how much went to infrastructure?
I feel the stimulus was too little in terms of building and too much in terms of tax cuts.
But you might diasgree and state it was just right.
So, how come you say it failed, if it was just right?
What would have been more effective? More infrastructure and more tax cuts?
The massive warfare jobs program has not stimulated anything. Check out Robert Reich.
ilsm will not change
There were 60 dems but not 60 votes.
It is war on the private enterprise it is rather war on covert class war.
There has been a class war, one sided, since 1981, and when the populist side begins to walk the propagandists spout war on private enterprise.
No it is war on fascism.
Private enterprise is fine attacking fascism is not attacking private enterprise.
Any more than attacking the corrupt war machine is isolationism.
ilsm,
Hey it was your guys who passed the stimulous, remember? If they wanted it to be bigger Obama and the Dems could have pushed it through. They had 60 votes in the Senate. If it didn’t work blame Obama, he’s the guy in charge.
I just pointed out that we could already be doing what Linda listed if the Dems had wanted too. Those actions are not held up by action/inaction on the Bush tax cut experation. Two different items.
Is there anything you won’t try to tie back to you fantasy idea to get the US back into isolationism? Something that puts you well outside the political mainstream of both parties – way, way out in the cold…I’ll send you a parka.
Islam will change
Troy,
and that’s who’s fault? Yes, it was the Dem President Obama! And the Dem leaders, Pelosi & Reid, who couldn’t get the votes. So quit your whining this is who you voted for!
BTW, Bush seemed to manage to get massive bi-partisan support for our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did this even after the Dems took control of the House and Senate! Sometmes getting over 90 votes in the Senate. And not once were any of the bills supported and re-affirming our effort in those two countries in any jeopardy at all on not being passed.
So why can’t Obama get things passed? Even with huge majorities that any R president for the past 50 years would have dreamed about…
Islam will change
The road to anarchy is trod by the conformists.
Your response is not enlightening, but predictable.
I do not care to be politically mainstream with plunderers.
The Germans were ‘political mainstream’ in the 1930’s and see where they ended up.
Ad hominems, are not debate.
Despite the propagandists lies it is not “war on the private enterprise “it is rather war on the ongoing covert class war.
There has been a class war, one sided, since 1981, and when the populist side begins to respond the corporatist propagandists spout w”ar on private enterprise”.
Malarky. No, populism is war on fascism.
Private enterprise is fine, fascism is not. Assaulting fascism is not attacking private enterprise.
Any more than attacking the corrupt war machine is isolationism.
ilsm,
Yep, we agree. Dem President Wilson made th egreatest mistake in US history by not occupying Germany after WW I for 50 years like we did after WW II.
Glad you understand your out in la-la land.
BTW, where is the plan for cutting the defense budget by 50%? You linked to a good artcle on it the other day. Now that you get front-page priviledge lets see your plan. Start with US national objectives and work down, just like the professionals do. Your target is an annual budget of $350B in 2011. So what’s in your budget? how do you plan to sustain the force? And lastly do you still have the quaint idea that the state militia can protect us?
Islam will change
So how many of you who are pushing the 39% (or 70%) tax rate are going to pay that rate? I am. I would happily pay that rate if I felt that the govrenment was resonably efficient with the money. I would feel better about the tax increase if all of the tax cuts were allowed to expire. I will row the boat and even take the biggest oars as long as others are helping.
You see 39%, but add in FICA (double for self employed), Medicare and a state tax of 10+% and you have a ~55% tax rate. How do you justify that? How is this not a case of pure self justification?
I’m a little disappointed that the dems think obstructionist tactics can block a bill that automatically disappears. The minority needs to pass a bill to keep the cuts from disappearing in this case. Why not have the majority obstruct that? If the dems loose that one, I will be very suspicious of their motives.
Linda,
Agreed that bush tax cuts must sunset, along with a number of other things that are off topic for this thread. Also, I don’t believe it’s ultra rich people that make the world go ’round. Or at least we shouldn’t let ’em always do it their way. We risk becoming a nation of yacht builders!
But you may want to check into this statement you made..”We are a very lightly taxed nation…”
Don’t believe it’s so. I saw a rough analysis done by Brad deLong (whom I don’t mind quoting when he seems to be correct) that total taxation in the US is at about average when compared to the rest of the developed world. Forgot the exact details, but he summed up all revenue at state, local and federal levels and calculated the percent of GDP. Our beloved untaxed nation was about the same as Canada (personally I would adjust the numbers for national health care vs private insurance cost) and smack in the middle of the rest. The range from high to low was not that large either.
buff,
From la la land,
Japan, South Korea etc the US is broke and the folk here are not going to eat cat food so you all get busy dealing with whoever buffpilot is fearful for you about.
Paraphrasing Einstein.
Any one can make it wastefully larger, more expensive and unreasonably complicated, it takes talent to make it work.
The stuff now don’t work, the Taliban and Mahdi army hold the trillions in war machnie to a standstill. Real enemies are laughing and watching the US bankrupt itself and trade liberty for militarism.
Common Defense, Not Empire:
No sense planning to deliver and sustain US brigades in combat Kyrgyzistan. Stop that idea! Deploying US Army forces in Balkans was expensive waste and failed, as were Iraq and Afghanistan. None of it was common defense it was empire.
If Japan is threatened they need to spend more, same for South Korea and Taiwan is not a recognized country, the US has no diplomatic relations and is selling arms to them because it is a way to recycle their excess US Dollars. India don’t need US help, their pilots whooped the USAF sent to train and exercise them.
Return to the old A109 prescription, you know the one that prescribes how to acquire things for the USG, that all programs and plans prove their worth, and justify the expenditure of scarce resources.
Close Joint Forces Command and a few other think tank formations like Office of Joint Chief, all they do is dream up exciting reasons for WWII tactics and expensive force structure. Like the excuse for a super large refuler to bring tank gas to Kirgyzistan!
Force Structure:
Stop the mobilization for two and half wars. Reduce the mobilizations to provide the common defense, and that does not include guarantees to Taiwan with whom the US does not maintain diplomatic relations.
Total force Army: 7 Brigade (Bge) active and 10 Bge NG/Res. Reduce USAF to 3 “expeditionary wings”, 1 active 2 reserve/ANG, an Airlift wing with Tankers dispersed in ANG on each coast, and keep MM and Peacekeeper on standby. Navy: 75 ships, 50 in reserve fleet.
That should take about 7% US G outlays.
Second, kill the 40 major program which are more than 25% overrun, they are all late and not progressing. That would reduce the 5 year outlays of investment and R&D by about $700B and the 20 years by $1.4T. Cut the production quantities to equip new force structure.
Annual DoD budget $250B in 2009 dollars, about 7% of 2009 outlays.
Beat the spears into ploughshares.
I look forward to more ad hominems.
ilsm will not change
Your arguement is more true if you adjust for health insurance in the US (of course about 50% of health care is government today). So adjust Europe in the same way.
Of course. But in actuality, I’ll leave that to an economist to do. I’m very protective of my leisure time.
As a dyed in the wool free market enthusiast I want to make it clear that the effective capitalist entrepreneur does not need the government meddling in his participation in the economy. There is no good rationale for attempting to adjust the taxation process for the purpose of affecting a true entrepreneur’s approach to investment decisions. Tax policies and outcomes need to be focused on raising revenue to pay the cost of good government. Good and effective government is likely to affect economic activities in the most positive manner. It has been pointed out on this site repeatedly that the weight of the evidence indicates that there is no determinable relationship between tax policies and economic activity. Taxation is for the purpose of funding government activities.
If one is dissatisfied with the need to raise taxes then one should focus on reducing government costs. Stop blaming the tax collector for the misadventures of the government. The only policy questions that should pertain to taxation is the means by which funds are to be raised; who is it that should be contributing to the cost of government and in what relationship those contributions should be balanced.? That seems to have been the intention of Linda’s post which, in part, has been obscured by references to the effect of taxation on economic activity. That’s a lame excuse for distorting the issue of balance. Taxes need to be collected and the people and entities that gain the most from the government’s activities should pay the greatest share of that need. And the measure of gain is very easy in a capitalist economy.
I can guarantee that Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mike Dell didn’t sit around at the frat party saying “If Reagan gets elected he’ll cut taxes and then maybe I can start my own business. Maybe something to do with these cute little Altair computers I’ve been messing around with…”
logic101,
What marginal rate would you have paid if off budget surpluses had not accrued to $2.4T in SS trust fund? Or $800B inb OPM retirement trusts?
What wars would have not been waged for corporatism? How many F-22 would have been produced, if SS off budget surpluses were not funding them the F-22 would have had to work and pass its testing. There are about 100 big ticket acquisitions in DoD that are similarly over run and late, and do not get tested. In NASA and DoT how many similar tragedies about big ticket systems like air traffic systems and space stations, shuttles and rockets?
55% is cheap.
Who is paying for the war machine keeping gasoline and resources cheap for India and Red China?
Who is keeping airline tickets at commodity price levels? Who is paying to keep ports open?
Who bailed out wall st? Who caused that collapse? Who was not hanged?
I stop paying SS at 106K? So do you. State and local taxes are paid in part by IRS (39% or 70%) by the deduction you take, mortgage and RE taxes same.
I will fall below top bracket, single when when I lose work. I am still working.
Efficiency, cut the war machine, see GAO 09 326SP for a start. Cut corporate welfare. Raise users’ fees for air traffic, highways, tax gasoline more, etc.
Use off budget surpluses to retire privately held debt.
Tariffs for countries who dump dollars back into sovereign wealth holding US notes.
There is a spending side and when the taxes rise the pain might fix all the fraud and waste there.
logic101,
What marginal rate would you have paid if off budget surpluses had not accrued to $2.4T in SS trust fund? Or $800B in OPM retirement trusts?
What wars would have not been waged for corporatism? How many F-22 would have been produced, if SS off budget surpluses were not funding them, the F-22 would have had to work and pass its testing. There are about 100 big ticket acquisitions in DoD that are similarly over run and late, and do not get tested. In NASA and DoT how many similar tragedies about big ticket systems like air traffic systems and space stations, shuttles and rockets?
55% is cheap.
Who is paying for the war machine keeping gasoline and resources cheap for India and Red China?
Who is keeping airline tickets at commodity price levels? Who is paying to keep ports open?
Who bailed out wall st? Who caused that collapse? Who was not hanged?
I stop paying SS at 106K? So do you. State and local taxes are paid in part by IRS (39% or 70%) by the deduction you take, mortgage and RE taxes same.
I will fall below top bracket, single when when I lose work. I am still working.
Efficiency, cut the war machine, see GAO 09 326SP for a start. Cut corporate welfare. Raise users’ fees for air traffic, highways, tax gasoline more, etc.
Use off budget surpluses to retire privately held debt.
Tariffs for countries who dump dollars back into sovereign wealth holding US notes.
There is a spending side and when the taxes rise the pain might fix all the fraud and waste there.
At the end, in my opinion, there must be a combination of fiscal stimulus, low interest rate, public investment, industrial policy, trade deficit reduction and tax havens closure as a way out of this nightmare
a.- The defense budget must be greatly reduced, and expend this money in infrastructures that acts as “economic multipliers”, for example= why not to build some nuclear power plants to have less energy imports, and have an advantage in production costs associated to the energy costs?. Also the green energy should be help in the research and development phase to get a real competitive energy prices
b.- The interest rates should be maintained low in the next years, as an incentive to the investment, and also to avoid the nightmare a high interest rate could pose to the people with variable interest mortgage that can give the keys of their houses to the banks in millions, and then wrecking havoc to the now damaged financial system
c.- There must have an industrial policy, helping new factories that produce jobs, and installing a “fair” trade policy, more than a “free” trade policy. USA cannot compete with an authoritarian state that maintains slavery labor conditions to his workers and no environmental constrains to the factories. This way of life in those countries are not sustainable in the long term, but before it collapses they could destroy all the industrial base of the western countries, now very depleted (except Germany of course). Also the technology and know-how provide by the public universities and research centers should be not allowed to be sent oversea to give an advantage to others countries that do not invest in this kind of things
d.- The tax cut for the rich must finish, also prosecute much hardly the black economy and tax havens where a huge amount of money is lost. The tax havens are really an scandal in this time, and nobody seems interested in close them
Those are some things to start to do
ilsm,
Thanks. Of course your force structue would require us to exit NATO and all other mutual defense treaties world wide. We would have no ability to project power into any part of Asia and would be hard pressed even to help in Europe. Basically we would have the diplomatic ability of Sweden to effect events outside 100 nm from the CONUS and Alaska (probably not Alaska). I assume that this also closes all US bases world-wide outside the US and territories – and a lot of the remaining bases inside the US. US timeline to project power would be measured in years. The conventional forces would be hardpressed to stop Cuba from invading….
And of course forget any humanitarian relief anywhere farther away than Cuba.
Cutting all the major modernaization programs would leave your projected force effectively neutered within a decade. At least you kept the nuclear forces – even the Russians realized that your Strategic Forces are the last to go.
This is a force structure that abandons the world to their fate. Total isolationist. Expect massive power vacuums as the US pulls out, to be filled by the oppurtunists that abound around the world. I would expect an immediate upswing in piracy and small wars world wide, with the odds of major conflicts becoming an almost certainty once it set in that the US was no longer a player.
At least you admit that this idea is totally not supported by either political party and is way, way out in left field (really in the BFE part of the parking lot).
Islam will change
ilsm,
You are right reducing corruption is not isolationism. But you are not advocating that, your advocating isolationism.
Your ideas are so far out from the mainstream that they can’t even be seen.
Islam will change
ilsm wrote:
What marginal rate would you have paid if off budget surpluses had not accrued to 2.4T in SS trust fund or $800B in OPM retirement trusts?
How many F-22 would have been produced , if SS off budget surpluses were not funding them?
Use off budget surpluses to retire privately held debt.
You meant to say publicly held debt, correct?
Not only were the surpluses used to fund some of the projects you mentioned, the unified deficit looked smaller all these years.
Do you think it was possible to simply leave the Treasuries in the fund, and let the principal and interest accrue for the Social Security beneficiaries?
Don Levit
I
Don,
You meant to say publicly held debt, correct? Yes.
Not only were the surpluses used to fund some of the projects you mentioned, the unified deficit looked smaller all these years. Truth.
Do you think it was possible to simply leave the Treasuries in the fund, and let the principal and interest accrue for the Social Security beneficiaries? No, the off budget surpluses should have been used to eliminate publicly held T Bills.
The fed is not a bank and the surpluses should have been “invested”, and in some ways they could and should have been handled better on Wal St.
Who knew the conservative were plotting to destroy the US by massive defiicits hidden behind excessive payroll tax receipts, which were squandered on war and corporate welfare??
LOL.
Why can’t you do something aside from pillage the taxpayer for your sorry plans and phoney threats, excuses to save the world from its fate? What fate and why don’t their boys take care of them? Answer!! Now!
Abandon the world to their fate, while SS collapses.
Who is worried about the ordinary working person in the US.
Abandon buffpilot to your fate is what worries you when the warfare welfare ends..
buff,
You have finally got me in the corner, I can argue but why bother.
I am roaring, rolling on the floor laughing my butt off.
Your fixation on politics, which congress critter keeps giving you your bacon? For your worthless work, building what, making excuses to buy what? Plans for a new long range bomber for nuking whom? Worth what?
Without whose patronage would you be in the street?
This patronage is your need for “undue influence” to keep your standard of living. I have worked around this for 38 years, pretty standard.
Weak!
Are you sure either party is that concerned for your welfare in the war machine?
Why can’t you do something aside from pillage the taxpayer for your sorry plans and phoney threats, excuses to save the world from its scary fate? What fate and why don’t their boys take care of them? Answer!! Now!
Abandon the world to their fate, while SS collapses.
Who is worried about the ordinary working person in the US.
Abandon buffpilot to your fate is what worries you when the warfare welfare ends.
LOL
Only in your military industrial complex mainstream, get the idea.
My ideas are based on facts and don’t need some mainstream welfare spreader in the pentagon to look the other way to keep the money going to pure waste and continued funding scrap and rework for things that have nothing to do with keeping someone in Asia secured, whatever that means.
Mainstream is really a stretch.
What would you do if your “program” were made to work or be cut?
Answer I don’t care how far out the idea, what would you do if the contract paying you were terminated for default as it should be?
Beale: “We are a very lightly taxed nation…”
Where should one begin in refuting this complete %&$* nonsense?
Laughable.
All this talk argument about the pros/cons of taxes are totally useless. I think people are still failing to see that the tax increase will mainly affect the productive people. The middle class, and the highly paid professional workforce.
An income tax mainly affect those who draw a paycheck through w2, and small businesses that uses 1099 to report/pay their taxes. Just ask any high income tax earner that “qualifies” for the wonderbar Alternative Minimum Tax.
This is very distinct from the investment/wealthy individuals that gets taxed mainly on the capital gains tax system.
When you want to tax the “Rich” whom do you tax anyway? The taxation system gets the money from the productive and leaves the poor and the rich along.
The bottom line: Any new taxes proposed by either party is a sham. I think it’s time to think what the government is using the money for anyway? The High Taxation State like New York, California just wasting the tax payers money and don’t have any accoutability. I am not saying the Democratic controlled states aren’t accountable, other Republican states aren’t doing better like Florida or Arizona for example. Low tax income tax Democrate state are attracting/doing better… just look at Washington State. Sometimes it’s not which party is in charge is important. More importantly, which elected officials are accountable with tax payer’s money.
Why should anyone pay more taxes to a mismanged system. Both parties are equally guilty!
buff,
I know you are nervous over cuts and what you do when the gravy train shuts down, but let’s talk beyond sound bites and irrational fears.
You need to explain how getting the US down to the same level of war state spending in the economy as the Europeans gets it to have to “exit NATO”?
If the Brits are still in NATO and the Germans with greatly declining war industries, what about US exceptionalism makes it that spending like them means the US exits NATO?
Explain.
I realize you were a B-52 pilot, who likely flew with armed nukes and did not know it, and you never had to know anything more technical than your -1. The rest of the world has to use facts, and logic.
Why does the US get thrown out of NATO if it stops wasting all that money on war profiteers?
Where you been?