quote:

Bush: The Biggest Taxer in World History

The Treasury Department reported Friday that federal revenues reached $2.12 trillion ($2,120,000,000,0000) for the first ten months of fiscal year 2007. In both current and inflation-adjusted dollars, that puts the federal government on course for the most revenue it’s ever collected in a year. Indeed, it’s the most revenue any government in the history of the world has ever collected. And yet it’s not enough to satisfy the voracious appetites of the spenders in Congress and the administration. Spending was $2.27 trillion for the same ten months.

It seems that the deficit problem in Washington is not a result of insufficient tax revenue but rather the inexorable growth of spending on everything from earmarks to entitlements to war.

To be sure, the U.S. economy is the largest national economy in history, and that’s the main reason for record tax levels. And tax revenues are not at their peak in terms of percentage of GDP–though they’re getting close. Earlier in the year OMB estimated that revenues as a percentage of GDP would reach 18.5 percent in 2007. But as of a month ago that figure had reached 18.8 percent, approaching the levels that typically produce popular demand for relief. But as spending interests become stronger and more widespread in Washington, popular demand for lower taxes faces more resistance. It seems safe to conclude that George W. Bush will go down in history as the biggest taxer and the biggest spender ever.

quote:

Originally posted by MaxwellEdison:
Crazy - cutting taxes increases revenue! Who knew?

quote:

Originally posted by sw614:
Given what the article says are reasons for the record amount of revenue collected, isn't the conclusion and also the heading of the thread somewhat misleading?

If these increased revenues are the result of a stronger economy and not a higher tax level, how can it be said the President is the biggest taxer of all time?

quote:

Originally posted by MaxwellEdison:
Crazy - cutting taxes increases revenue! Who knew?

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:

quote:

Originally posted by sw614:
Given what the article says are reasons for the record amount of revenue collected, isn't the conclusion and also the heading of the thread somewhat misleading?

If these increased revenues are the result of a stronger economy and not a higher tax level, how can it be said the President is the biggest taxer of all time?

If you have collected the most tax money.... what does that make you?

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:

quote:

Originally posted by MaxwellEdison:
Crazy - cutting taxes increases revenue! Who knew?

Were it that simplistic.

quote:

Originally posted by Tomcatt:

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:

quote:

Originally posted by MaxwellEdison:
Crazy - cutting taxes increases revenue! Who knew?

Were it that simplistic.

It has worked most times it has been tried.

quote:

Originally posted by USAF_76_2_80:
Cato @ Liberty - The official Cato Institute blog.

quote:

Bush: The Biggest Taxer in World History

The Treasury Department reported Friday that federal revenues reached $2.12 trillion ($2,120,000,000,0000) for the first ten months of fiscal year 2007. In both current and inflation-adjusted dollars, that puts the federal government on course for the most revenue it’s ever collected in a year. Indeed, it’s the most revenue any government in the history of the world has ever collected. And yet it’s not enough to satisfy the voracious appetites of the spenders in Congress and the administration. Spending was $2.27 trillion for the same ten months.

It seems that the deficit problem in Washington is not a result of insufficient tax revenue but rather the inexorable growth of spending on everything from earmarks to entitlements to war.

To be sure, the U.S. economy is the largest national economy in history, and that’s the main reason for record tax levels. And tax revenues are not at their peak in terms of percentage of GDP–though they’re getting close. Earlier in the year OMB estimated that revenues as a percentage of GDP would reach 18.5 percent in 2007. But as of a month ago that figure had reached 18.8 percent, approaching the levels that typically produce popular demand for relief. But as spending interests become stronger and more widespread in Washington, popular demand for lower taxes faces more resistance. It seems safe to conclude that George W. Bush will go down in history as the biggest taxer and the biggest spender ever.

quote:

Originally posted by Tomcatt:
wow it is amazing that what the Republicans have been saying for years lowering taxes increases revenue.

I am sure the democrats will try to raise taxes again so the Fed does not get as much revenue, but more is taken out of our paychecks

Yea, I like that better, that way no one has money.

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines dont have that problem." Pres. Reagan, 1985.

quote:

Originally posted by Literarygrunt:
Maybe one way to help take a bit out of all this is to eliminate all entitlement costs, such as pensions for government workers, military pensions, social security, VA benefits, etc and etc. Even if promised, promises can be broken very easily. This way, individual citizens can really feel they are helping our government move into the black again.

And, if anyone *****es, just point out that America was made by men and women who depended on just themeselves, and thus, whiners should just pull themselves up by their boot straps and stop complaining. Besides, those who don't save and invest with an eye toward the future can only blame themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Literarygrunt:
I expect you will be assaulted with all kinds of confusing stats, numbers, arguments, etc, to prove that what is stated in the piece is just not true, even if it is.

quote:

Originally posted by Literarygrunt:
I expect you will be assaulted with all kinds of confusing stats, numbers, arguments, etc, to prove that what is stated in the piece is just not true, even if it is.

Maybe one way to help take a bit out of all this is to eliminate all entitlement costs, such as pensions for government workers, military pensions, social security, VA benefits, etc and etc. Even if promised, promises can be broken very easily. This way, individual citizens can really feel they are helping our government move into the black again.

And, if anyone *****es, just point out that America was made by men and women who depended on just themeselves, and thus, whiners should just pull themselves up by their boot straps and stop complaining. Besides, those who don't save and invest with an eye toward the future can only blame themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by Drmwvr:

quote:

Originally posted by Tomcatt:
wow it is amazing that what the Republicans have been saying for years lowering taxes increases revenue.

I am sure the democrats will try to raise taxes again so the Fed does not get as much revenue, but more is taken out of our paychecks

Yea, I like that better, that way no one has money.

I've been of the opinion for years......The Repubs/cons want to share the wealth...the dimolibs want to share the misery!

quote:

Originally posted by RRR52:

quote:

Originally posted by Literarygrunt:
I expect you will be assaulted with all kinds of confusing stats, numbers, arguments, etc, to prove that what is stated in the piece is just not true, even if it is.

Heck, we wouldn't want facts and cogent analysis to get into the way of so-called "liberal" obfuscation.

The whole deal on taxes is tax RATES. Throughout my lifetime, it has always been tax RATE increases that draw lables of excessive taxation. Completely disingenuous to play word games, when throughout history--even in the American colonies--it has been a matter of tax RATES that creates animosity--rightfully so. And the higher the rates, the more the talent (a) decides not to work and generate the wealth or (b) takes their business elsewhere.

Ronald Reagan earned his reputable place in American economic history for a number of reasons, but what probably is most salient, in 1986 he lowered the marginal RATES of taxation. This nation has done so well generally in the decades since then, because of the lowered tax RATES.

Hillie-Baby can't wait to increase those RATES. And why not, she lives on--and in her adult life has almost always lived on--taxpayers' dimes, so the impact on her life by icreased taxation is minimal. And she has been able to sock away money from political favors and other shenanigans, leveraging her public office, when tax RATES are low. No, on a personal level, Hillie-Baby will be doing quite well, thanks to Repuiblican tax RATE decreases. Hey recall that she "brilliantly" turned $2,000 into $98,000 in the futures markets--remember that political payoff? Low tax RATES allowed her to keep more of that. But if she has her way, you won't have the same RATES. She can't wait to grab more of other people's money by higher and higher tax RATES. Grab yer wallet, Toots.

quote:

Originally posted by alcyone:

quote:

Originally posted by Literarygrunt:
I expect you will be assaulted with all kinds of confusing stats, numbers, arguments, etc, to prove that what is stated in the piece is just not true, even if it is.

Maybe one way to help take a bit out of all this is to eliminate all entitlement costs, such as pensions for government workers, military pensions, social security, VA benefits, etc and etc. Even if promised, promises can be broken very easily. This way, individual citizens can really feel they are helping our government move into the black again.

And, if anyone *****es, just point out that America was made by men and women who depended on just themeselves, and thus, whiners should just pull themselves up by their boot straps and stop complaining. Besides, those who don't save and invest with an eye toward the future can only blame themselves.

Yes and thousands of those same citizens STARVED in the great depression (bfore social security) and the saving were wiped out by failing banks (before FDIC) IF you stole a loaf of bread to feed your starving family, you were sent to prison. Nobody gave a Shi* if you died in front of them. You also had a great mass of citizens who couldn't even read and medical care was a laugh...who could afford it?

You think winging it on your on is such a grand thing? I wish I could time travel you back to the 20-30's and let you get a real taste of "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" (Oh and all your education would have to be sucked out of your brain too, as that was an "entitlement" you didn't have then. Try being ignorant AND poor in a time such as then and see how that feels)

The modern arrogant ego inflated champions of "self help" and arch conservatives would scream like stuck pigs if forced to live in the conditions prior to the "entitlements" we have worked so hard to attain.

But hey, if the entitlements bother you so badly, then don't use any of them. Pay for EVERYTHING from the time you were born. Don't go to public schools and don't take a dime for anything, but what you've earned by the sweat of your OWN brow. Don't use the VA, don't read documents prepared by the Government warniong you about pesticides, don't read the labels on medicine. DO IT ALL YOURSELF.

Have a nice life!

quote:

Originally posted by RRR52:

quote:

Originally posted by Literarygrunt:
Maybe one way to help take a bit out of all this is to eliminate all entitlement costs, such as pensions for government workers, military pensions, social security, VA benefits, etc and etc. Even if promised, promises can be broken very easily. This way, individual citizens can really feel they are helping our government move into the black again.

And, if anyone *****es, just point out that America was made by men and women who depended on just themeselves, and thus, whiners should just pull themselves up by their boot straps and stop complaining. Besides, those who don't save and invest with an eye toward the future can only blame themselves.

You are beginning to grow up and learn. Good. But you must be a liberal—jealous of what others have earned, and no frickin’ idea of the difference between what is earned by dint of service and application of mind, body, and spirit versus what is handed out on the basis of poly-tickle expediency.

Never except by politicians was any "promise" made to give health care to people the way many seem willing to expect it now. They have done nothing to EARN it. Military retirement, veterans' benefits, come from SERVICE and are EARNED--if the contractual obligation is met.

One thing: those who never had what it takes to remain in the service for a career seldom really know what they are saying when military retirement is discussed. Military retirees EARN what they get from the Guvmint, and they receive no handouts. In the case of US military, I absolutely know that as a junior officer when we worked round-the-clock, we calculated our pay as sub-minimum wage, even for '76. Few then would stick with the regimen required in a poorly paid, poorly resourced Army. But the real soldiers, the dependables, the stalwarts remained. And America got by real cheap, as stagflation under liberal Jimmy Carter made life for military people very tough. Less so Guvmint workers and certainly not SocSec recipients, whose annual increases were tidy amounts in the late 1970s, while Congress scraped whatever they could out of military budgets to pay for their pork and handouts for reelection..

In 1980, I knew of quite a few folks with technical degrees, 3-5 years of experience, who resigned their commissions to immediately earn $30K-33K with better bennies, when some of us who were a tad more senior and carried much more responsibility--but who were more dedicated to service to the nation--were paid about $24K. And years earlier, I recall so clearly the mockery bestowed upon those who wore a uniform, when few were confident enough in their abilities and dedicated enough in their attitudes to accept the challenge of doing what was unpopular, when the effete snobs and self-appointed hoi polloi would not come near military service. Oh, they were much too fine and dandy to actually subject themselves for the best years of their lives to lower pay and such tough requirements.

The young pups who came into the service in 1982 and after actually had it pretty good, after two annual raises that brought military pay back up to parity with what the military were paid in '72.

About 30% of captains never saw the rank of major or above and were, therefore, unable to draw any military "retirement," despite their 11-12 years of service at the time. After that time they were given $30K and booted. They had done nothing wrong, they just did not have as good a relationship with their raters and senior raters. Remember: one screw-up in over a decade can result in non-selection for promotion; it’s a matter of boards seeking reasons to not promote. A good financial deal for US taxpayers. Much service, low compensation.

Decades of service to the nation at reduced pay, with the promise of a "retirement" that pays the mortgage and some life insurance, is earned--as much as you and those like you have ever earned anything in your lives.

If anybody thinks the "retirement" earned by highly capable people, who could have likely earned more money as civilians, was such a great deal, he could have gotten off his dead arse, earned a commission or reenlisted, and earned the wonderful military pay, too. Again, it is an earned opportunity. No handouts, no gimmes, none of the "you have a right to other people's money if you vote for me" crap. Those who draw the military "retirement" have paid big-time for every bit of the delayed compensation that comes their way.

Not like SocSec, where so-called entitlement payments often greatly exceed the time-value of the FICA payments made. (And just as wrong are those who pay into SocSec for many years, die soon after drawing it, and get nowhere near the value of their FICA payments; terribly wrong for their heirs.) Not like the promises of (half-baked) universal health care--guaranteed medical care mediocrity. Not like handouts for college--unsecured by promises of national service at reduced pay rates, as ROTC and USMA--where those who choose to not attend college end up paying for what is of personal benefit for those who directly reap the bennies.

I know the military who joined up during the Vietnam Era were promised good healthcare for life, for them and dependents. Obviously, no way that has happened, and the subsequent lies from Congress are made only to delay, delay, knowing more and more who were so promised will die before they get what they were assured a third of a century ago. So military people have already been lied to and deprived of that which they truly earned.

Again, it comes down to what has been earned by tact of mind, sweat of brow, service for decades, when so many other people were both unwilling and unable in mind, body, and spirit to deliver the goods for the nation. Those who were booted or chose to depart too soon for military “retirement” pay have no room, no credibility to begin to discuss what career military people have earned, fair and square. It is no handout, no freebie, no poly-tickle game.

Military people will serve and give much, but many are very talented, and if they look about and see others who have less on the ball making out much better, morale drops, since the military folks know they are allowing their families to lose out on so much. There has to be something of fair value to hold them for the longer career runs. Thus, the deal is made to offer 20-year “retirement.”

quote:

Originally posted by Drmwvr:

quote:

Originally posted by Tomcatt:
wow it is amazing that what the Republicans have been saying for years lowering taxes increases revenue.

I am sure the democrats will try to raise taxes again so the Fed does not get as much revenue, but more is taken out of our paychecks

Yea, I like that better, that way no one has money.

I've been of the opinion for years......The Repubs/cons want to share the wealth...the dimolibs want to share the misery!

quote:

Yes and thousands of those same citizens STARVED in the great depression (bfore social security) and the saving were wiped out by failing banks (before FDIC) IF you stole a loaf of bread to feed your starving family, you were sent to prison. Nobody gave a Shi* if you died in front of them. You also had a great mass of citizens who couldn't even read and medical care was a laugh...who could afford it?

quote:

Originally posted by Literarygrunt:
Just to play devil's advocate, a 20 or 30 year hitch is a refuge for those who can't make it outside of service. The reward of a retirement then is just a continuation.

I'm not being serious, but I will say this seriously. I recall very strongly the disdain many of us felt for "lifers." Why do you suppose that is?

quote:

Originally posted by RRR52:

quote:

Originally posted by Literarygrunt:
Just to play devil's advocate, a 20 or 30 year hitch is a refuge for those who can't make it outside of service. The reward of a retirement then is just a continuation.

I'm not being serious, but I will say this seriously. I recall very strongly the disdain many of us felt for "lifers." Why do you suppose that is?

Hmmmmmmm. . . . Can't make it outside the service, eh? Now there's a convenient imagination.

Why do I suppose disdain for those who serve for life? Ignorance of the demonstrated ability of those who earned rank to which they were promoted or appointed. Immaturity. And jealousy of what you could not discipline yourself to achieve. You had to minimize the cognitive dissonance somehow, or you'd have had to admit you did not yet have it together, that your departure would in at least a small way be letting down the nation and maybe yourself. And how many of the officers and NCOs you routinely served with were active-duty with most of their careers spent in active MTOE units? What was your level of contact with them? Did your unit have a very active, meaningful mission? Were you privy to the objectives the unit leaders were given? All of them? These factors influence how much you really knew of the demands placed on the leadership and, therefore, how much you (with the grand, worldly experience and well-developed professional judgment you then had) could properly judge their performance. Or did you think they just didn't pay enough attention to you? Some folks need their hands held more than others.

And having seen a lot of both "sides," I absolutely know that the sense of self-sacrifice for the good of others is a damn sight greater among people with many years in the military than among most who had never served or served fewer years. Even in the non-military worlds of higher construction management and engineering education and, more recently, serving in a contractor role for Katrina, Wilma, and in Iraq, the sense of duty, the ability to work in harmony for the good of the organization was generally stronger among former military than not. Not perfectly so, but generally so.

The money has generally been better out of the service than in it, especially once one gets reestablished a bit. No, the opportunity for a relatively safe, low-stress, more financially beneficial life seems better for most as civilians, not as active duty military people.

quote:

Originally posted by Literarygrunt:

Why do I get the feeling you were a lifer? I was

You make some good points, but you also make some assumptions about me that are incorrect assumptions. You are also reading into my words more than you need to be, and that is distorting your view of what I am saying. OK As well, sometimes I make statements that have to be taken with a grain of salt. If I told you I thought the Swift idea for eating Irish babies was a good one, would you belive that?

One is that I am all for a welfare state, taking from those who work to give to those who wont or can't, etc. I work typically 60 hour days, and started working and learning the value of hard work with my first paper route, way back when. I think that our society must, though, protect those who need it, in whatever form that may be. And society is best able to do that by ensuring that those who earn are allowed to keep more of what they earn; the higher tax revenues with lower tax rates is a smart policy, if the long-term good of all people is what we really want. A strong but not overbearing defense adds much to that protection of all, too. It is just way to complicated for me to really want to get into, so just trust me when I say I am not advocating some far lefty mega welfare state where they crush down working folks to give to those who don't or won't take care of themselves. OK

Be honest, there are some who don't belong in the service, and you must have met at least one person in uniform who you knew would not be able to cut it outside the service. The service tends to do a much better job of moving to other lines of work those who cannot hack its greater demands. I know I did in my 9 years in uniform (3 RA, 3 NG, and 3 reserves). And I do remember some lifers who were not worth the powder and lead to blow them to hell. Same or more could usually be said of those who were chaptered, barred, court-martialed, etc. and not lifers. A couple were the nastiest little tyrants, but thankfully, most I served with were good folks, and some were brothers (in the Infantry, can't say I felt that way when I got reclassed because of an injured leg).

And yeah, there were us young privates, PFCs, Spec 4s who were looking at the lifers and were glad to be getting out when our hitches were up. 20 more days and a wakeup.

No jealously there, I had no intention of making the Army my career (I did at one time consider it seriously, but because of the injury, I couldn't remain combat arms or in the Infantry, and that is all I wanted to do in the Army, so planned to ETS and go to school), and there is nothing wrong with that. And I saw some clearly unqualified folks with no leadership skills and questionable judgement who were in leadership slots. You did too, I imagine. But they were generally gone before CPT, even in the 70s when the Army needed to hold onto everybody it could.

I served with some very qualified and inspirational NCOs and, to a much lesser degree, officers. And I had more than one CO who no one respected much. Lifers and career types, if that makes sense to you. If that CO was a CPT, how do you know absolutely that he even wanted to be a lifer? My unit in West Germany had a very meaningful mission, a Pershing warhead detachment. As grinding and monotonous as it could be, all of us were very much behind the mission and what we were doing, and believed in the mission. And we were kept informed as much as you could be expected. And no one wanted their hands held, least of all me.

I could also see, as a 22 year old E4, that some of our senior NCOs and some officers were in fact pretty much ****ing up badly, and letting us all down, and at times, putting others at risk. You don't need to have 15 years of experience under your belt to see some of the BS that was clearly inexusable by anyone, particularly in a combat leadership role. Make sense?
And those with those kinds of issues were generally the "lifers." So your marriage is coming apart, you still have to focus on the mission and your men, period, or you caught your significant other cheating, same deal. Name the personal issues you like, and plug them in.

I do think it is fair to say there are those who are lost outside the service, and should have been allowed to stay in forever. And there are some great people who get out as quick as they can after a first hitch, who would have grown into fantastic leaders and assets. Ambitious folks generally can do well no matter where they are, and then there are the kinds of lifers I met in the Army who dreaded actually having to make a living out of uniform, and with good reason. I cannot say I personally ran into any careerists, any I personally knew, who have been unable to do as well or even better out of uniform.

Deciding to stay for 20 may be noble, but there are as many reasons why as there are individuals, and some reasons are far from noble. Don't assume that a career man or woman did it for pure patriotism, though some do. And should the 20 year man be treated differently? Honor him for his duty, yes. Hold him up above others simply because he served for a career instead of one enlistment? It follows logically: if giving 4 years of one's life to the nation's security is viewed to be good, then giving many more years is a greater value to the nation. That becomes especially true when those who extend their service--particularly at times when military compensation sucks--could have sought other, more remunerative employment. That depends on other factors.

Sure, ex military types do tend to work together well, and take care of each other better than someone who never saw service. It comes with the lessons we learned starting in boot camp and extending through our various experiences, so I agree with you there. And combat arms types do this more naturally than non combat arms types. No matter how many years are behind you once you ETSed or retired, some leasons will always pay off. Some do; I continue to believe that a major contributor to US predominance after WW2, while dependent on some other factors, nevertheless was the sense of dedication and character that the millions of men brought back to their homes and careers. They also went through the Depression as kids, so maybe the influence of service on thier characters is tough to prove.

quote:

Originally posted by Literarygrunt: Yup, what you are saying is frightfully true. Life 100 years ago, let alone in the depression, was brutal and ugly.