So how's Kerry gonna increase your income?

[sameoldsht]

I just heard portion of a speach by Kerry proclaiming that he will "increase wages" and "lower the cost of health care" if he's elected. Of course there was no mention of HOW he would accomplish this.

Anyone have a clue how he plans to increase every American's wage and reduce all of our health insurance premiums? Does he have a magic wand or something?

Kerry has said repeatedly that he will increase taxes which will always reduce the dollars in our bank accounts. I enjoyed the tax cuts by Bush, which increased the number of dollars in my bank account. And I'm not "rich" by any stretch of the imagination (the old, tired liberal line of class warfare BS is a myth and lie, cleverly packaged as a false "issue" by Democrats - nothing new there).

I realize that Kerry is "anyone but Bush" and he'll get many, many of his votes because of that reason alone, but I don't see how simply not being Bush will increase everybody's income and/or lower our health insurance premiums.

Now, if Kerry promised to increase my BB/100 hands rate, that would be a remarkable feat indeed. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[elwoodblues]

Did he say that we will "increase wages" as you quoted or that he will "increase every American's wage" as you summarized?

[andyfox]

"Kerry has said repeatedly that he will increase taxes"

Kerry has said repeatedly that he will NOT increase taxes on the 98% of the population with incomes below $200,000/year. It is his opponents who have lied about what he has said and claim that he is runing on a platform of increasing taxes.

[adios]

He's also stated that he'll cut the deficit in half I believe. Given his economic policy the other day I don't see how that will happen. It doesn't matter though and quite frankly talking about Kerry's economic policy is probably a silly excercise. If Kerry's elected he'll be lucky if he gets any tax increase through Congress IMO. FWIW I think the Democrats getting control of Congress is a long shot. Kerry will have the veto power as his most effective policy tool if he's elected.

[andyfox]

From Kerry's article in the Wall Street Journal:

My economic plan will do the following: (1) Create good jobs, (2) cut middle-class taxes and health-care costs, (3) restore America's competitive edge, and (4) cut the deficit and restore economic confidence.

Under my plan, the tax cuts would be extended and made permanent for 98% of Americans. In addition, I support new tax cuts for college, child care and health care -- in total, more than twice as large as the new tax cuts President Bush is proposing.

I await documentation of your claim that he has repeatedly said he will increase taxes.

[andyfox]

Don't most presidential candidates offer their own concoction of "voodoo" economics? (I'm gonna cut taxes and cut the deficit.)

I agree with your take on what Kerry would most likely be facing in Congress were he elected.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
I await documentation of your claim that he has repeatedly said he will increase taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't hold your breath. That guy's user id is a bit too appropriate.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I await documentation of your claim that he has repeatedly said he will increase taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry says: [ QUOTE ]
(2004-02-16) -- Democrat presidential frontrunner John Forbes Kerry, who favors raising taxes on families that earn more than $200,000 annually, said today that "ordinary American families don't need that kind of loot."

"There's no legitimate reason why a commoner needs that much cash," said the multimillionaire Senator who married the heiress of the Heinz food fortune. "Joe and Sally Sixpack would just waste the money on bland food, mall-store clothing, cookie-cutter homes, tacky decorative items and education for their mediocre spawn."

Mr. Kerry said that raising taxes on anyone who crosses the $200,000 threshold would "disincentify common folks from earning too much" thus reducing the demand for "crass products."

"Higher taxes on such people will help prevent the debasing of our culture and put us on the road to becoming more like Europe," he said.



[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001587.html

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't most presidential candidates offer their own concoction of "voodoo" economics? (I'm gonna cut taxes and cut the deficit.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah pretty much but most lie about taxes as well. GWB and Ronnie Reagan didn't although Reagan's tax reform in 1986 could be debated. I'm going with what I know regarding taxes as Bush has a proven record. Sorry I don't trust Kerry at all.

[kak17]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't most presidential candidates offer their own concoction of "voodoo" economics? (I'm gonna cut taxes and cut the deficit.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah pretty much but most lie about taxes as well. GWB and Ronnie Reagan didn't although Reagan's tax reform in 1986 could be debated. I'm going with what I know regarding taxes as Bush has a proven record. Sorry I don't trust Kerry at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tax revenues went up every year during the 1980's. It wasn't Ronald Reagan's cut on marginal tax rates that caused the huge budget deficit. It was the out of control spending by the Democratic Congress.

[Nepa]

[ QUOTE ]
It was the out of control spending by the Democratic Congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Today it is the out of control spending of the republican controlled congress.

[andyfox]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kak17]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was the out of control spending by the Democratic Congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

Today it is the out of control spending of the republican controlled congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[bwana devil]

[ QUOTE ]
I enjoyed the tax cuts by Bush, which increased the number of dollars in my bank account. And I'm not "rich" by any stretch of the imagination

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like you to discuss this more. I'd be curious how you could provide any proof or convincing argument to demonstrate.

[frizzfreeling]

The fact is that both Bush AND Kerry are fiscally irresponsible. But it's not really their fault, because to get elected anymore, you have to be. The average american voter lives in the now, and doesnt pay heed to the consequences of a skyrocketing national debt. So when someone promises to cut their taxes, they're all for it! Total lack of planning for the future.
The hard and painful fact is that taxes should not be cut at all! Think about it. If you are going into debt at a record pace, do you take an extra couple weeks off from your job for vacation? Not if you are responsible.
Those of you who are rooting for tax cuts need to get a clue. Do you have any idea what happens when a government goes bankrupt? Or do you think that the U.S. is somehow immune to the economics of the rest of the world?

[astroglide]

didn't read the thread, but i'll answer the topic: don't care, voting for him anyway. separate christian fundamentalism from the republican party and they'll have my votes. it's worth any amount of taxation/unemployment/whatever to me, even though i don't think either party strongly affects anything in my life economically.

[Cyrus]

"Tax revenues went up every year during the 1980's."

That's because after instigating a tax cut in his first year and getting the country awash in red ink, Ronald Reagan, the very next year, raised taxes in what amounted to the single biggest tax increase in United States history -- a record that has yet to be broken!

The "country's tax revenues" were the results of hitting the middle class the hardest. The 1980s were a good decade for the Michael Milkens but the decade produced the largest deficits in the history of the world (so much for "fiscal conservatism"), severe unemployment (which left deep scars in the American working person's psyche, as evidenced by data concerning "non-economic" issues such as dicvorces, etc), falling family incomes, declining industries, and rising federal and household indebtedness.

The most vividly representative symbol of the stupidity of Reagan "economics" was the now conveniently forgotten Savings & Loans scandal. People today don't realize that they're still paying for that grift through their taxes. The vig's still there, hidden under interest expenses, in the federal budget.

"It wasn't Ronald Reagan's cut on marginal tax rates that caused the huge budget deficit. It was the out of control spending by the Democratic Congress."

This is a myth.

Allow, please, the Wall Street Journal (Oct.1994) to explain things clearly:

<font color="blue"> "Contrary to Republican claims, the 1993 package is not 'the largest tax increase in history'. The 1982 deficit-reduction package of President Reagan and Sen. Robert Dole [b]in a GOP-controlled Senate was a bigger tax bill, both in 1993-adjuested dollars and as a percentage of the overall economy."</font>

Additionally, you don't seem very familiar with what Reagan Budget Director David Stockman subsequently revealed. The way Stockman explained things, as an insider, and to paraphrase George H. W. Bush, the economic legacy of the Republican years 1981-1993 left America in deep voodoo. All for stupid, blind, ideological reasons.

We are watching a replay of that GOP stupidity in the current elections.

[adios]

Ok so I guess then you'd say GWB is the only president that's kept his promise to lower taxes in recent memory. Even more reason to vote for him.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I enjoyed the tax cuts by Bush, which increased the number of dollars in my bank account. And I'm not "rich" by any stretch of the imagination

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like you to discuss this more. I'd be curious how you could provide any proof or convincing argument to demonstrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I felt I had to comment on this post. Do you sir get a weekly paycheck? All you need to do is pull out your pay stubs for the last three years, and look at the percentage of Federal tax removed. It went down which remarkably means your net pay increrased.

If you require more prooof than your own eyes and pay stubs or if you are on welfare and have no pay stubs please go to the tax rate tables online at the IRS site and notice how for the same amount of income your tax rates decreased from year to year.

Jimbo

[cardcounter0]

Yep. And then take all that extra money on your paycheck and use it to help fill your gas tank. Then dig into your pocket and pay your increased health insurance premium. Then thank the Lord your job hasn't been outsourced yet.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep. And then take all that extra money on your paycheck and use it to help fill your gas tank. Then dig into your pocket and pay your increased health insurance premium. Then thank the Lord your job hasn't been outsourced yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

And your point is? I love the misdirection in your post, you must be a David Copperfield fan huh?

Jimbo

[cardcounter0]

Actually the point is pretty direct. Bush's policies have led to higher energy costs and increased outsourcing of jobs. He is in bed with the Insurance and Pharmacutical corporate interests.

So any extra money you think you are getting in decreased taxes, is getting blown on higher energy costs and health care, if you haven't already lost your job.

It would have probably been more efficient and cost-effective if you had just signed your tax refund check and sent it directly to Halliburton. Save the overhead of the govt. middle man that way.

[Jimbo]

World economics is obviously not your forte. However your left wing propaganda gig has some potential, that is unless you get "outsourced" in November.

Jimbo

[vulturesrow]

Ahh the minister of disinformation strikes again. Lets examine a few of your claims shall we?

[ QUOTE ]
The "country's tax revenues" were the results of hitting the middle class the hardest.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a favorite myth. The following is taken from this article (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html) by the Cato Institute.

Contrary to popular rhetoric, the wealthiest Americans did not pay less taxes; rather, they paid more taxes after the income tax rate cuts in 1981. In constant dollars, the richest 10 percent of Americans paid $177 billion in federal income taxes in 1980 but paid $237 billion in 1988. The remaining 90 percent of households paid $5 billion less in income taxes over this period. They earned more and they paid more. In fact, Federal Reserve Board member Lawrence Lindsey has shown that taxes paid by the wealthy were substantially higher than they would have been if the top tax rate had remained at 70 percent. Data shows that the share of total income taxes paid by the wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans actually rose from 18 percent in 1981 to 25 percent in 1990. The wealthiest 5 percent of Americans saw their tax share rise from 35 to 44 percent. So the rise in the deficit was clearly not a result of "tax cuts for the rich.

[ QUOTE ]
but the decade produced the largest deficits in the history of the world

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you got something sort of right. Unfortunately, the deficits were cause by the drop in inflation brought about by a restrictive monetary policy and the immense military buildup.

[ QUOTE ]
The most vividly representative symbol of the stupidity of Reagan "economics" was the now conveniently forgotten Savings &amp; Loans scandal.

[/ QUOTE ]

What did the S&amp;L scandal have to do with Reagan's economic policies? The root cause of that industry's failure had with deposit insurance.

[adios]

I refuted this Cyrus claim awhile back. He resurrects it every so often. Thanks for taking your turn /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Cyrus]

"This is a favorite myth. "

I so much enjoyed your "debunking" of that "myth"!

What you purport to show is that the richest cats in America made out like bandits in the 80s, and subsequently paid out more in taxes - in absolute terms.

You come on like a Reagan fan - and you do not disappoint: You are truly a grifter with numbers, just like the Gipper! Item : "The wealthiest 5 percent of Americans saw their tax share rise from 35 to 44 percent."

Hah. This is supposed to show that the 5 percenters were taxed more during Reagan's term. This did not happen. The wealthiest 5 percent saw their income rise to dizzying heights, which made them pay more than they were previously paying (hence your "tax share rise") but actually paid out to the tax man a smaller percentage of their income. All thanks to the Gipper!


And I noticed that you conveniently forgot to mention the hit on the middle class, the surge in unemployment (a.k.a. "disciplining the working class"), the colossal debt accrued, etc.

Got any more "refutations" like that, you or Adios?


/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Got any more "refutations" like that, you or Adios?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already bitch slapped you on this one. Dubya's lowering my tax bill, your guy wants to raise mine.

[MMMMMM]

I think Cyrus should be forced to admit when he's wrong, for once.

I'll hold him while you explain it to him 'til he agrees.

[Cyrus]

"I've already bitch slapped you on this one."

Yowza! You're also a fantasist!

I'm still waiting for any piece of evidence that refutes my insolent, impertinent, intractable claim that Ronald Reagan instigated the biggest tax increase EVER in American history!. Anyone?

Well, I'm not holding my breath. (I'm not a masochist.) /images/graemlins/cool.gif

"Dubya's lowering my tax bill, your guy wants to raise mine."

Yeah, right.

When Dubya hits you in the pocket next year, don't come round these parts for commiseration. I'll be waiting with a bucketload of I-told-ya-so's!

'Cause you already showed you can do it. So there's no excuse. You've read the father's lips. Why can't you read the son's lips?

[adios]

I don't have the inclination to cover the same ground twice most of the time, infrequently the same ground three times, rarely 4 times, almost never 5 times. Basically government revenues increased during the Reagan administration due to splendid economic growth. I will concede though (I did in a previous post) that the 86 tax cut may not have been revenue neutral. People that filed 1040's lost legitimate deductions. Dubya's my man, he ain't raising taxes in fact he'll probably lower mine.

[Cyrus]

"I will concede though (I did in a previous post) that the 86 tax cut may not have been revenue neutral."

Good on ya.

From that point, to realize that Reagan is (still) the champion of all tax raisers in American History is but a small but very tough step. Come on, Adios, ya can do it! (Take hart. Evewn the Wall Street Journal said as much!)

Note that it is important to focus yer mind on the TAX ISSUE. Forget for a moment the whole-economy-grew argument and concentrate on the TAX ISSUE. You can deal with the sleight-of-hand trick of 1980s economy and the fallacies of averages at some later time. For now, the TAX ISSUE.

If you won't understand the TAX ISSUE (and how the Republicans have hit yer pocket so many times), you're gonna vote for a man who's lying to you, for someone who's gonna raise your TAX as surely as his dad asked you to read his lips.

[riverflush]

My head is spinning reading this post.....whoa

Kerry is going to raise taxes. Not sure how that's even being debated up at the top of this thread. Raising taxes on the top rates is still raising taxes - even if it doesn't (in theory) affect you (because it does). It's a tax raise.

How is that not clear?

All those "rich" households making $225,000/yr on two incomes busting their ass in Corporate America Middle Management (at places like Xerox, Eli Lilly, and GE) would surely disagree with this "populist" rhetoric nonsense...which is really arbitrary.

Why does Kerry want to raise this bracket? Because it pays a plurality of taxes - and would raise HUGE amounts of money that he would then spend on GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE.

Recipe for disaster my friends...it's called Canada.

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
"I will concede though (I did in a previous post) that the 86 tax cut may not have been revenue neutral."

Good on ya.

From that point, to realize that Reagan is (still) the champion of all tax raisers in American History is but a small but very tough step. Come on, Adios, ya can do it! (Take hart. Evewn the Wall Street Journal said as much!)

Note that it is important to focus yer mind on the TAX ISSUE. Forget for a moment the whole-economy-grew argument and concentrate on the TAX ISSUE. You can deal with the sleight-of-hand trick of 1980s economy and the fallacies of averages at some later time. For now, the TAX ISSUE.

If you won't understand the TAX ISSUE (and how the Republicans have hit yer pocket so many times), you're gonna vote for a man who's lying to you, for someone who's gonna raise your TAX as surely as his dad asked you to read his lips.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before we even get started Cyrus...I'm going to nip this in the butt...

There is NO WAY IN HELL that GWB is going to raise federal income taxes in a second term. You can take that to the bank (literally). I'll put cash up on that prop bet.

That said, the Republican-controlled Congress is a spend-and-spend, out-of-control pork-filled piece of crap. (Wow - I don't usually get that colorful with my words)

There is a theory out there - within libertarian and conservative circles - that the huge deficits are a loss-leader on planned MASSIVE spending cuts in a second Bush term. There is significant momentum for a "leaning-out" of government in a second Bush term. There is a group of legislators on the center-right that believe the deficits will act as a way to starve government spending to force massive cuts. If it's true, we're in for a huge battle in the next four years.

I'll believe it when I see it.

There's only two choices: massively cut spending/government or raise taxes.

[kak17]

[ QUOTE ]

And I noticed that you conveniently forgot to mention the hit on the middle class, the surge in unemployment (a.k.a. "disciplining the working class"), the colossal debt accrued, etc.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The sudden surge in unemployment was the result of the sudden drop in inflation.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I so much enjoyed your "debunking" of that "myth"!


[/ QUOTE ]

If you'd bothered to read a little closer , you'd have seen it wasnt my debunking, it was straight out of a study by the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank.

[ QUOTE ]
Hah. This is supposed to show that the 5 percenters were taxed more during Reagan's term. This did not happen. The wealthiest 5 percent saw their income rise to dizzying heights, which made them pay more than they were previously paying (hence your "tax share rise") but actually paid out to the tax man a smaller percentage of their income. All thanks to the Gipper!

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice strawman. It still doesnt change the fact that the top 5% of income earners paid out almost 50 percent of tax revenue. Where are your numbers showing percentages of income paid in taxes per quintile of income earners?

[ QUOTE ]
And I noticed that you conveniently forgot to mention the hit on the middle class

[/ QUOTE ]

I did forget, thanks for reminding me. Again from the Cato Institute study (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html) :

During the Reagan years, the total share of national income tilted toward the wealthiest Americans. From 1980 to 1988 the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans increased their share of total income from 16.5 to 18.3 while the poorest fifth saw their share fall from 4.2 to 3.8 percent. [49]

Yet it is not true that the gains by the wealthiest Americans came at the expense of low-income Americans. From 1981 to 1989, every income quintile--from the richest to the poorest--gained income according to the Census Bureau economic data (see Figure 11). [50] The reason the wealthiest Americans saw their share of total income rise is that they gained income at a faster pace than did the middle class and the poor. But Reaganomics did create a rising tide that lifted nearly all boats.

By 1989 there were 5.9 million more Americans whose salaries exceeded $50,000 a year than there were in 1981 (adjusting for inflation). Similarly, there were 2.5 million more Americans earning more than $75,000 a year, an 83 percent increase. And the number of Americans earning less than $10,000 a year fell by 3.4 million workers.

[ QUOTE ]
the surge in unemployment

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone else pointed out, the rise in unemployment (which actually peaked in 1982, which is when Reagans economic policies came into effect) can be attributed to the sharp, but necessary, decline in inflation. In toto however, unemployment rates dropped during the Reagan presidency and were at 5.5 when he left office. Again from Cato:

When Reagan took office in 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In the recession of 1981-82, that rate peaked at 9.7 percent, but it fell continuously for the next seven years. When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.5 percent. This reduction in joblessness was a clear triumph of the Reagan program. Figure 3 shows that in the pre-Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended upward; in the Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended downward; and in the post-Reagan years, the unemployment rate has fluctuated up and down but today remains virtually unchanged from the 1989 rate.

[ QUOTE ]
the colossal debt accrued

[/ QUOTE ]

I spoke to the deficit in my post. Guess you missed that part.

[ QUOTE ]
Got any more "refutations" like that, you or Adios?

[/ QUOTE ]

As long you keep supporting the wrong side Cyrus, I'll always endeavor to set you Right /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
As long you keep supporting the wrong side Cyrus, I'll always endeavor to set you Right



[/ QUOTE ]
Vulture you really are wasting your time discussing any subject with it (The Cyrus). It cannot even admit when it makes a mistake in math. It argues statistics with Mason and if it had half a chance I'm sure it would explain how David's "The Theory of Poker" is flawed.

Jimbo

[sameoldsht]

I seriously don't know: did professional gamblers get their taxes cut by Bush?