Paying Taxes is Patriotic

[Mango]

I, too, am disappointed because I think Obama set too lofty a goal in his promise to bring anew to Washington regarding ethics reform because where in the world do you find anyone with sufficient experience for these posts who have not had some kind of contact with Penn. Ave at some point?

As far as the Stimulus Package, well, that just scares the begeejus out of me because we are entering new territory and some of the counter ideas, frankly, are nothing new and innovative and too far right ot left. The only stimulus proposal that Senate Republicans have come forward with is Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) “ American Option, which, IMO, is too far right.

Here is his Jobs Plan which he claims will create 18 million new jobs in 10 years. There hasn't been a single administration, including Reagon, who ever produced that many jobs. Further, he has no reference to how he has arrived at his calculations and some of it seems to be more of the same old same policies that haven't been working, especially regarding taxes. Also, his plan's costs will amount to 3 Trillion dollars. More than triple than the current plan.

On the flip side, and I obviously am not going to read the entire 647 pages of the Stimulus Proposal, here he outlines some of what he calls the Liberal Grab.
He's saying that only 5% will go to infrastructure spending, only 12% of the plan will have any stimulus to the economy, etc. Then he has a list of spending items, that, IMO, should not be included in the Stimulus Package, but should be earmarks. What he fails to note is that the huge amounts of education funds included in the Plan which includes rebuilding schools, will also spur job growth.

When Mr. Obama outlined a plan in which just under 40 percent of the stimulus rested on tax cuts, it was criticized by Senate Democrats who argued for more spending and by Republicans who sought deeper tax cuts. House Republicans in particular argued for an approach that would rely primarily on permanent cuts in income and business taxes. The plan also included huge increases in federal spending on education, aid to states for Medicaid costs, temporary increases in unemployment benefits and a vast array of public works projects to create jobs.

The plan would shower the nation’s school districts, child care centers and university campuses with $150 billion in new federal spending, a vast two-year investment that would more than double the Department of Education’s current budget. The proposed emergency expenditures on nearly every realm of education, including school renovation, special education, Head Start and grants to needy college students, would amount to the largest increase in federal aid since Washington began to spend significantly on education after World War II.

(What I would like to know is how will this spur job creation and how much? other than hiring more teachers and rebuilding crumbling schools? How much of these funds go to needy college students? I was once a needy college student myself, but managed to get scholarships and student loan money which I just paid off several years ago.)

So yes, I have grave concerns about the Plan, as we all should, regardless of party affiliation because all these lunkheads we elected can't reach some kind of middle ground between deficit spending, tax breaks and lazy unfair (laissare fare) economics. Maybe we do need to spend more money on education so we can produce some future wonks who will take care of us in our old age.

 

[traderx]

Here is his Jobs Plan which he claims will create 18 million new jobs in 10 years. There hasn't been a single administration, including Reagon, who ever produced that many jobs.

In the year before Reagan took office - 1980 - civilian employment totalled 99.3 million. In Reagan's last year of office - 1988 - civilian employment was 115 million. This represents an increase of 15.7 million jobs and almost two million per year. That is considerably higher than the 1.8 million jobs cited in your post. Data is from BLS.gov.

Obama will likely cave on some of the Pubs' demands to get his stimulus package passed. There will be tax cuts but the bill will remain an homage to Keynes. We will set new records for deficit spending with the hope that government knows better and can juice the economy more than the people and business. Tax rate cuts have proven successful but the Obamanistas will not pass a bill based primarily on tax rate cuts because it violates their embrace of class warfare. By polarizing the country along economic lines, the Obamanistas increase their job security. Party before country.

 

[futurebeachbum]

There's a great quote in an article on the whole ethics and taxes issue today in the Washington Post.

From the article:

"For all the promises of a revolution in ethics, President Obama has created a new syndrome: The well-off can be made to stop evading their taxes by nominating them for cabinet posts."​

If enough of them are nominated, who knows? Every little bit helps...

 

[Mango]

In the year before Reagan took office - 1980 - civilian employment totalled 99.3 million. In Reagan's last year of office - 1988 - civilian employment was 115 million. This represents an increase of 15.7 million jobs and almost two million per year. That is considerably higher than the 1.8 million jobs cited in your post. Data is from BLS.gov.

Frankly, unemployment figures alone mean nothing to me, but since you raised it, here is how Reagan compared to every other President. What interests me, instead, is how and why jobs were created, and the socioeconomic conditions. Did people take more jobs just to maintain their standard of living when the wealth is concentrated in the higher percentiles? Were more woman going to to work to during Reagan?

 

[Mango]

Here's also a chart detailing the Presidents economic performance through Clinton.

1. Economic growth averaged 2.94% under Republican Presidents and 3.92% under Democratic Presidents. See this post.

1. Inflation averaged 4.96% under Republicans and 4.26% under Democrats. See this post.

1. Unemployment averaged 6.75% under Republicans and 5.1% under Democrats. See this post.

1. Total federal spending rose at an average rate of 7.57% under Republican Presidents and at an average rate of 6.96% under Democratic Presidents. See this post.

1. Total non-defense federal spending rose at an average rate of 10.08% under Republicans and at an average rate of 8.34% under Democrats. See this post.

1. During the forty-year period studied, the National Debt grew by $3.8 trillion under budgets submitted by Republican Presidents and by $720 billion under budgets submitted by Democratic Presidents. Stated differently, the average annual deficit under Republicans was $190 billion; and, while under Democrats, it was $36 billion. See this post.

1. During the period studied, under Republican Presidents the number of federal government non-defense employees rose by 310,000, while the number of such employees rose by 59,000 under Democrats. See this post.

Just For the Record

 

[30A Skunkape]

I (and others) were quite concerned that the guy in charge of the Treasury couldn't figure out his taxes - and said so rather vehemently in threads on that topic.

Anyone who wishes to serve had better pay their taxes and any penalties in full - that goes for ALL elected officials of both parties too!

I started to do my taxes last night, and the software triple checked me to make sure I didn't get any money from overseas interests. I have got to imagine this is a result of this guy's goof.

I forgot about what a thorn in the side Daschle was to W, but I was initially surprised at his selection because his wife is an uber-lobbyist and Obama wanted those types out of the picture.

 

[traderx]

Frankly, unemployment figures alone mean nothing to me, but since you raised it, here is how Reagan compared to every other President. What interests me, instead, is how and why jobs were created, and the socioeconomic conditions. Did people take more jobs just to maintain their standard of living when the wealth is concentrated in the higher percentiles? Were more woman going to to work to during Reagan?

You have me confused with someone else. I did not raise unemployment figures; I presented employment growth data as depicted on the BLS.gov website and more particularly, job growth during Reagan's eight years.

 

[traderx]

Here's also a chart detailing the Presidents economic performance through Clinton.

1. Economic growth averaged 2.94% under Republican Presidents and 3.92% under Democratic Presidents. See this post.

1. Inflation averaged 4.96% under Republicans and 4.26% under Democrats. See this post.

1. Unemployment averaged 6.75% under Republicans and 5.1% under Democrats. See this post.

1. Total federal spending rose at an average rate of 7.57% under Republican Presidents and at an average rate of 6.96% under Democratic Presidents. See this post.

1. Total non-defense federal spending rose at an average rate of 10.08% under Republicans and at an average rate of 8.34% under Democrats. See this post.

1. During the forty-year period studied, the National Debt grew by $3.8 trillion under budgets submitted by Republican Presidents and by $720 billion under budgets submitted by Democratic Presidents. Stated differently, the average annual deficit under Republicans was $190 billion; and, while under Democrats, it was $36 billion. See this post.

1. During the period studied, under Republican Presidents the number of federal government non-defense employees rose by 310,000, while the number of such employees rose by 59,000 under Democrats. See this post.

Just For the Record

It took the first fact check and thirty seconds to discredit "Just For the Record".

Based on data at BEA.gov, the first year that Clinton showed a surplus was 1998. JFR claims each of Clinton's last four years had surpluses. It is interesting to note that Clinton actually cut tax rates in 1997 which in large part led to the first surplus the next year.

 

[full time]

I, too, am disappointed because I think Obama set too lofty a goal in his promise to bring anew to Washington regarding ethics reform because where in the world do you find anyone with sufficient experience for these posts who have not had some kind of contact with Penn. Ave at some point?

Disappointed? What .... woke up this morning and no unicorns, rainbows and candy canes - only tax cheats? Yea, Obama was way too lofty in setting his goals when he thought he could find a Cabinet of law abiding public servants from within the Democratic ranks. You know its bad when the Clinton's financial dealings look clean by comparison.

 

[John R]

as someone who's partied with the IRS on a semi regular basis, I believe the system is so heavy and convoluted, it feeds on itself to make more 'things' in the code. The penalties and interest rates are akin to a loanshark's, it's hard for mr. joe the plumber-blow to wrestle himself out from under. The IRS machine never sleeps. And there's no way daischle could claim he didn't know he owed. wrong guy for the job.

The IRS needs to be closed and rebuilt from scratch. that would create a tax holiday and infuse cash into the economy.