Their "income inequality", "tax cuts for the rich", and "things were much better under Clinton" mantra has been revealed for the utter nonsense that it is.
Noteworthy:
"First, the new data show that the bottom 50% of Americans in income--U.S. households with an income below the median of $44,389--paid a smaller share of total income taxes in 2004 (3.3%) than in Bill Clinton's last year in office (3.9%). That 3.3% is the lowest share of total income taxes paid by the bottom half of earners in at least 30 years, and probably ever. The majority of American families with an income below $40,000 pay no income tax at all today, and many of them also get a welfare subsidy from the Earned Income Tax Credit that effectively offsets much of what they pay in payroll taxes.
By contrast, Americans with an income in the top 1% paid 36.9% of all federal income taxes in 2004, down slightly from 37.4% at what was the height of the dot-com boom in 2000. But the top 5% and 10% of earners saw an increase in their tax share over that same period, with the top 5%'s share rising to 57.1% in 2004 from 56.5% in 2000."
"The inequality theme somehow only emerges when Republicans are in power, and this or that statistic can be trotted out to play to the stereotype that the GOP cares only about the rich, or Halliburton."
"We'd suggest readers ignore the inequality fad that is intended for election-year consumption and keep their eyes on what really matters--the policies that promote growth and prosperity for all Americans."
Powerful stuff.
It totally refutes EVERYTHING the Dems and their minions have been babbling about the economy ever since 2001.
Look for the hypocritical outrage and the distortions to be FURIOUS from those who can't afford the political damage this report will inflict on their cause.
Let's make sure we get this information into the hearts and minds of the public.
What about wages and unemployment? There were more taxes for the lower 90% under Clinton because there was more money being made by the once existant middle class. From personal experience, as a middle class guy, I made more under Clinton, I paid less for everything, and there were jobs to be had everywhere. Now, I make less, if was looking for a regular job they aren't there, and I pay more for everything, especially gas. Tax data must be presented in relativity to all other economic data. The jobs that Bush is creating are minimum wage jobs, which don't get an average family of three by. I might also point out that your link is from te Wall St Journal OP-Ed section which makes it an opinion, not fact.
ReplyDeleteBubba, why waste your breath trying to present the truth to the "Algore wuz robbed" naysayers?
ReplyDeleteYou and those like you who see reality instead of rhetoric know where the truth lies.
Thanks for continuing to give us the facts that are so often ignored by the libs.
"Tax data must be presented in relativity to all other economic data."
ReplyDeleteDidn't take long for The Denial to set in, did it?
I love how some people try to counter statistics with personal anecdotal perceived experiences.
"There was a LOT more than just "tax data" presented in the article."
If you think the writer's use of the info from the IRS is wrong, please tell us what do YOU think the statistics quoted say, Jay.
Leave your own situation out of it. And don't use phrases like "people tell me" or "everyone says" or "everyone knows".
Jaycee,the funny part about his post was that I made more under Clinton, too.
ReplyDeleteBut the reason for that had absolutely NOTHING to do with Clinton and his cronies' economic policy, and had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that my own efforts put myself into a postion where I made a great income.
My situation changed, but it had NOTHING to do with the Bush presidency.
Isn't amazing how some people think their personal financial success is directly tied tso government's economic policy? That there is little or nothing an individual can do to make the situation better?
That's usually the implication in the Libs' economic arguments, especially when it comes to their soundbite-laden criticism of Bush's policies.
One other thing, Jay:
ReplyDeleteRead this.
One group of people that made out like Fat Cats during the Clinton administration were lobbyists (according to a friend that was one).
ReplyDeleteThose were the days, he says. No limits, few restrictions, the lobbyists during Clinton's reign were virtually looking over the shoulders of liberal politicians in Congress while they cast their votes.
No special interest group went hungry when good 'ol Slick was in office...
Jaycee:
ReplyDeleteAs a proud member of the GOP, I recall that we took control of Congress in 1994. Wouldn't that make us responsible for the atmosphere enjoyed by the lobbyist during the Clinton-era.
One thing about that era was that Clinton had to work with Newt and Bob to govern the country.
That is what we are missing today. No one will work together, instead we just line up for frontal assaults and charge the enemy's front line.
Clinton and Gringrich balanced the budget and left Bush with a surplus. Clinton had to work with Congress because he knew what the people wanted. They wanted what was in the contract with America, but somehow the lobby reform got dropped along the way.
We still want balanced budgets and reduced deficits. That should be the first role of government. One thing many conservatives are livid with Bush over is the insane spending in the face of revenue reductions. Budget theory doesn't support such policy.
Bubba:
ReplyDeleteI refer you to page 11 of this CBO report from mid-August regarding the record budget defecits of the Bush administration and the fact that the sunset of the tax cuts will be the only thing that gets the budget back to normal.
Medicare, -caid, and SSI for boomers is going to settle in b/t 2015-2030 and only sane fiscal policy will be able to foster economic stability, according to the "economic outlook" section.
That's important to the country, right? Economic stability, that is.
"I refer you to page 11 of this CBO report from mid-August regarding the record budget defecits of the Bush administration and the fact that the sunset of the tax cuts will be the only thing that gets the budget back to normal."
ReplyDeleteC'mon, Jeff......spare me from the CBO professional career bureaucrats' standard response.
According to the CBO, increased taxes are ALWAYS the solution.
What else would you expect fron the entrenched myopia of the bean counters?
There's plenty of evidence that suggests that "the solution" lies elsewhere.
Inreased GROWTH, fiscal restraint, and reform of wasteful entitlement programs is ALWAYS a better policy.
Bubba:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link. That's one thing I like about your blog style.
I have to agree on the spending cuts as a solution, but we need to get that done and I don't ever see it happening.
I would like to see the president make some headway on this issue by January 2009.
"I would like to see the president make some headway on this issue by January 2009."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely critical. Should have been done two years ago.