9 Comments Add your own

• 1. Mike Carroll  |  July 14th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

  Perhaps it would be better to pander to the voters. Tell them that Social Security is financially strong and that any shortcomings can be fixed with minor adjustments. It would not be true of course but what the hell. OOPS, too late. That is the official Democratic position.

• 2. Pat Cunningham  |  July 14th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

  Mike: It’s true that fixing Social Security requires only minor adjustments. The only way the Chicken Littles can sell their scare stories is by conflating Medicare with Social Security. And then we have John McCain’s scandalous ignorance of how Social Security actually works. Heaven save us from the conservatives, the same geniuses who gave us today’s economic problems.

• 3. Mike Carroll  |  July 14th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

  If you are referring to the subprime mess, the last I checked the Fed was independent of the Executive branch so good luck on pinning that on the Republicans.
  If you refer to Freddie and Fannie, that potential debacle will fall directly in the laps of the Democrats who have been riding that horse for years. Think Franklin Raines.
  Cost of Oil-who has been blocking the use of offshore and Anwar. Not Republicans. Nuclear energy-please.
  Food costs-ethanol subsidies brought to us by both parties but with Democrats out front.
  I could go on but frankly-that dog don’t hunt.

• 4. Mike Carroll  |  July 14th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

  BTW-When liberals say minor adjustments what they are really saying is that there will be huge tax increases but, of course, it will only be that other guy who is taxed, you know, that rich guy. Don’t worry, we’ll take care of you. You don’t have to be responsible.

• 5. Pat Cunningham  |  July 14th, 2008 at 7:41 pm

  And when the conservatives are talking about tax adjustments, what they are really saying is that rich guys don’t have to worry. The only adjustments they’ll see are downward. That’s the Republican way. It’s been that way under Bush — even in time of war, even in time of soaring national debt and unbalanced budgets — and it would be that way under McCain. It’s an article of faith to these plutocrats. The Republicans love to call Democrats advocates of tax-and-spend policies. Their own policies are different. They believe in BORROW-and-spend. The last time we had a balanced budget — indeed, a surplus — was under a Democrat. So much for the fiscal responsibility of your so-called conservative friends.

• 6. Q Jordon  |  July 14th, 2008 at 8:53 pm

  Strange, I found the temptation to drill for off shore oil to be blocked by both parties.

  In Florida, Jeb Bush and the Republican party could not trip over themselves quick enough to vote no for offshore drilling. And as far as ANWR, they are not sure how much oil is going to come out of it.

  I find it strange that the oil companies are sitting on over seventy million acres of possible drilling leases and they have done nothing.
  They have over 230 pipes capped in Texas.

  So the question is simple — What is going on?

  And as far as the economic debacle — Just say WAR.
  We are borrowing from third world countries, China and India, just to sustain our ability to fight the war on terrorism. At the same time, this administration cut taxes on the upper percentages of those being taxed — nice sacrifice by all.

• 7. Mike Carroll  |  July 15th, 2008 at 7:11 am

  The annual report from the Feds on who pays what percentage of the the Federal income tax is due to come out soon.Early leaked reports indicate that the top earners have seen an increase in the amount of taxes paid. In other words, the Bush tax cuts have increased the taxes actually paid by the rich.
  Patrick, I will wait with baited breath to see how you and your fellow travelers spin that news.

• 8. Pat Cunningham  |  July 15th, 2008 at 7:39 am

  But here’s the question, Michael: Are the rich paying a smaller percentage of their earnings in taxes than was the case before Bush and the Republicans enacted tax cuts? Answer: Yes. Another question: Is the percentage decline in tax rates on the rich larger than any decline for middle-income folks? Again, yes. Under Bush, the rich have been getting richer and thus have had to pay more overall in taxes, but they’ve been paying smaller shares of what they bring in than they did under Clinton. The overriding question here is this: Has the tax burden shifted somewhat from fat cats to middle-income folks? Answer me that. Well, in 2004, the Congresssional Budget Office released figures reflecting changes in the tax burden for certain income levels after enactment of the Bush tax cuts:
  $1,100,000: -2.1%
  $182,700: -0.9%
  $75,600: +0.8%
  $51,500: +0.2%
  $34,200: -0.1%
  $14,900: -0.1%

  Looks like the middle got the squeeze.

• 9. Mike Carroll  |  July 15th, 2008 at 7:53 am

  Patrick, Patrick, Patrick-Yes, the rich are paying a smaller share (tax rate) under the Bush cuts than under Clinton but they are paying MORE in taxes. What, you want them to pay a larger share and less in taxes?
  Liberals just don’t seem to understand that when you change tax rates you change peoples behavior. Push the rates up and people take action to reduce their taxable income and Democrats will make sure that plenty of loopholes remain for their well heeled contributors-don’t kid yourself.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed