The day before signing yet another $350M in tax cuts into law, the President signed a piece of legislation required to facilitate the cuts. Congress had to up the legally allowable debt limit by $1trillion to accommodate the budget deficits being created by the current administration.

Yes, that is right. Not only is the vast surplus created during the previous administration completely gone, but the current deficit levels are the worst we have ever seen. That means that we would have been officially bankrupt as a nation without changing the rules of the game to allow for an even higher level of debt.

I believe this is what is known to most young children as the fox entering the hen house. Something that we know is not good news for anyone but the fox.

Gee, the things you can do when you're rich GOPers.

GOP: The Party of "Borrow and Spend"!

WASHINGTON -- With no comment or ceremony, President George W. Bush has signed a measure allowing Uncle Sam to borrow a bunch more money.

The bill he signed Tuesday raises the federal debt limit by nearly $1 trillion. It now stands at just under $7.5 trillion.

The U.S. Bureau of Public Debt says that as of May 23, the debt was exactly $6,460,375,443,807.49. Its figures are updated daily during the week.

This year's deficit is expected to top $300 billion -- a record.
_________________________________________________


Gee, I wonder why no comment or no ceremony?

Yeah. You can bet his team will be beating the drums today when he signs the tax cuts into law.

The rich get richer and the poor get...stiffed!

Tax law omits child credit in lowest income brackets

And now there's this little piece about the Bush Administrations decision to quash a report showing chronic deficits in the near future as the boomer generation retires.

A link to the story from MSNBC:

White House shelved deficit report

There was a time when Republicans stood for fiscal restraint - didn't the party once propose a Constitutional Amendment requiring a balanced budget?

NYT article... have to register to view it, but really... i wonder what is made up and what is not...

If you are talking about the lowest income brackets and child care credits... these people would NOT be paying taxes in the first place. Most of the time the child care credits can offset all of their income. Add to that the Earned Income Credit and it's quite possible these people are getting ALL thier income tax returned to them, and then additional money for being poor, ie welfare.

So, if the new tax break is for people up a notch of income... these people where actually PAYING taxes... the others were not. MORE MONEY TO THOSE WHO DONT PAY TAXES IN THE FIRST PLACE. The only folks who deserve money back, are those who ACTUALLY PAY the income tax in the first place, and not another form of welfare for poor people who chose to have children they could not afford to raise.

Fine Philly, but you really seem to think that the wealthy Americans already who will benefit the most from the budget busting plan of Shrubs, are really going to go out and spend and stimulate the economy?????? I don't think so my friend. They are going to sit on it, and be greedy just like we had in the 80's under you know who with his trickle down formula. Get real.

This is just more of the same crap that keeps surfacing, but so many people are burying their heads in the sand about. Nobody wants to realize the true economic mess that we are getting shoved into. Almost every reputable economist has been calling for more restraint on the tax cut situation, and has expressed doubts about the economic soundness of the administration's policies. Yet, people are so caught up in worrying about their current situation and getting a few more bucks in their pockets, that they refuse to deal with the reality.

When the actions of the current administration put us in the mess that Texas is currently experiencing, people will cry foul left and right. We will hear things like "they never warned us" and "we should have been told". Nobody will stop and admit that a bird in the hand is not always worth two in the bush.

The complete lack of any sign of fundamental concern for the long-term well-being of this country continues to be the hallmark of this administration.

Bingo Charlie, you got it man. And the government is setting such a wonderful example for all Americans too aren't they though? No money?? No worry man!! Get a credit card, and spend, spend, spend!!! Clinton yesterday addressing some group in Boston yesterday mentioned there was no Republican or Democrat he has spoken with that could speak about this with a straight face who was for it.

Im sure Warren Buffet will use some of his $320 million dollar tax cut to buy a new washer and dryer combo.

If you REALLY believe the Govt will SAVE money rather than just spend the surplus, i'm not sure what color the sky is where you live. It's nothing more than an excuse to spend spend spend! MORE SOCIAL PROGRAMS! Our education system is broke, let's give them more MONEY! Rather than make some tough choices to fix it.

Look at the last budget. Every senator has some pet spending project. ie pork barrel wasteful spending. They were all crying that they didnt have the needed money.. bubkus. Cut some programs. Make the money you get go further. The govt doesnt EVER do that. Now you guys want to give them more? You REALLY think your nickle now is going to the baby boom retirement account? Please.... The surplus in place when clinton was around wouldnt even sniff that upcoming problem.

Now, as far as tax cuts go... You guys say the rich deserve to pay more in taxes if they make more... yet, when time comes for a tax cut.. you dont think they are the ones who deserve it. It should go to the people already NOT paying taxes. In a progressive tax system, any tax cut will hit the rich before it does the poor. Just as if you raised taxes, the rich would pay more.

Fair is fair, if the rich pay more, they should get more back. The problem is not the govt giving free money to people... it's people not starting a family they can not afford. If you want to have 10 kids and make 25k a year, that's not my fault. It's not my duty to give you free money for doing something stupid. A better idea might be to invest in some condoms for these folks, not free money.

Phillyfan said, it will hit the rich before it does the poor exactly the problem my friend, it doesn't get to th epoor. Who says you have to throw money at everything, I don't, but we have alot of programs in this country that need mending, and there are a ton of state budgets in the red, begging for some $ from Washington. Even my neighbor the perennially Republican State of Idaho, just raised taxes, did you get that Phillyfan???? I thought Republicans were for cutting??Scuse me. wink

[quote]PhillyFan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fantomas:
So, if the new tax break is for people up a notch of income... these people where actually PAYING taxes... the others were not. MORE MONEY TO THOSE WHO DONT PAY TAXES IN THE FIRST PLACE. The only folks who deserve money back, are those who ACTUALLY PAY the income tax in the first place, and not another form of welfare for poor people who chose to have children they could not afford to raise. [/quote]But once again, you're WRONG. People who earn between $10K and $25K PAY TAXES!!! They pay a higher PERCENTAGE of their income than rich people. Why is that so hard for you to understand??? They also are hit with every other tax and fee at every level of government, from taxes on gasoline to property taxes to sales taxes. Yet these are the people who would most benefit from tax relief. NOT the multibillionaires that Bush is always trying to assist. Moreover, many very rich people ALREADY HAVE NUMEROUS MEANS OF AVOIDING paying taxes; and some major corporations like Enron (remember them, "Kenny Boy," etc.) paid NO taxes in certain years, while still getting all kinds of giveaways from the government. So be consistent; instead of slamming poor and working class people who make up the majority of this country and who are STRUGGLING TO GET BY EVERY DAY, why don't you look at the system as it is and realize that your beloved pResident is wholesale giving away our country to his friends and cronies, and multinationals that couldn't give a damn if many Americans (or foreigners) are unemployed for the rest of their lives.

LOL I-DA-HOE?????????? come on!

Now you want the federal govt to raise everyone's taxes to support a state like CA who has a social program for EVERYTHING! uhhhhhhhh, no thanks. If you cant afford it in the state, then dont do it.

yes, we have a budget crisis in AZ, however, it's due to the fact of BAD legislation that ate up a ton of money. To get past it, they need to be fiscally conservative, and cut some programs. THANK GOD that the repubs in the house and senate here have said they refuse to raise taxes.

gosh, i cant wait to support the idiots in ca with my tax dollars. Some focus group up in hippy land wants a million to save some bird they seem to like... If the federal govt is flippin the bill, they will get it.

The reason you have a BUDGET CRISIS in Arizona is because the GOP, which controlled your state for almost a generation, slashed taxes irresponsibly while still expecting somehow to draw enough revenues to pay for the basic social programs. Did the previous, incompetent Republicans--the thief Fife Symington, the ditsy Jane Dee Hull--NOT cut taxes? Do you really think you can get something for nothing? If so, have I got a bridge in Atlantis to sell you.

It's not only California, but nearly every state in the US that's in budgetary trouble, including several that spend hardly ANY money on social programs, like New Hampshire. So your response doesn't cut it. The GOP is the party of utter fiscal irresponsibility--when people wake up and see that, then we'll be a hell of a lot better off.

Baltimore City Paper: Tax the poor!

AH, so now you are including all taxes? Or just the income tax?

If i make a 150k, i'd pay less in social securty tax because it's capped like 80k or something, but if i make 25k i pay on all of it... so as a % yes it's higher... but since you get no more benefit than what you pay in... that will skew you total tax % number. That should be excluded from your tax %.

Tax rates are a % of the sale price. So if you tax a company and extra 10%... where do you think they are going to put that cost? in the price, thats right. Paid by the poor consumer. You want the fed govt to fix the prices of products? Any tax increase to companies are passed onto your poor consumber... rather than the company actually paying the tax. By you saying to tax the corporations more... you pass it on to the poor...

A single mother making 25k as you say... with 2 kids. std deduction... personal deduction... 2 deps... so lets say that i'm down to ummmm 10k in taxable income. Factor in the Earned income credit.... 500 bucks.... at 15% in taxes... i'd pay 1k in taxes all year on 25k... sounds like about 4% tax rate to me. And i'm being generous in my estimates here.... They would most surely pay less.

For me, throwing in EVERY single tax deduction that i've found... i can get no lower than 14%.

Now, tell me what this person has done to deserve paying less taxes than myself.

Gas Taxes... in the end, the rich people pay more in taxes on that... typically they drive larger cars. There is no fair way to empose the tax on gas, unless you have to bring your w-2 to the gas station. Your local 7/11 clerk will decide who pays the tax and who doesnt!

If your arguement is to help the poor, then dont encourage more tax on businesses.

Why is it that giving tax breaks to working people is giving them "free money" while giving tax breaks to rich people is "fair"? That is one I am trying hard to understand.

More importantly, a recent poll showed that something like 2/3 of Americans favor relief to the states to deal with their budget crises rather than any further tax cuts for anyone. The people clearly see the fiscal mess we are in, and they want to clean it up.

As for the surplus, it was being mostly used to pay down the national debt, which was a huge drain on our economy during the 80s because of the enormous interest payments we had to make on it (approaching, if not exceeding, 1/3 of the total federal budget in the late 80s). This left less room for government spending, and more deficits, and the cycle just got worse. By paying down the debt, we were putting ourselves in a much better position to deal with the issue of the Baby Boomer retirement problem. Now we are back in the same "don't tax and still spend" situation that Reagan/Bush left us in, but we have only 8 years before the first wave of retirees from the Boomer generation hit the tax roles.

For all of us under 40, college-educated and with decent incomes - hope you don't expect any health care or retirement benefits when you are older - you won't be getting any!

Phillyfan, as an economist, let me enlighten you (comments in italics)

One more note on business taxes, Phillyfan. In a competitive economy, businesses don't have much lee-way to simply increase prices every time their costs (for whatever reason) go up. They can only charge what the market will bear (think airlines and fuel costs on this one). So it is not a 1:1 correlation - tax=price increase.

I personally am not in favor of raising taxes on anyone (although I do think we should go back to the tax system as it was under Clinton's administration, and supported indexing the first Bush tax cut to the surplus), particularly business taxes. That is because there are so many loopholes for business to hide income already. Raising taxes will simply increase the use of loopholes - I favor closing the loopholes.

[quote]CPT_Doom:
If i make a 150k, i'd pay less in social securty tax because it's capped like 80k or something, but if i make 25k i pay on all of it... so as a % yes it's higher... but since you get no more benefit than what you pay in... that will skew you total tax % number. That should be excluded from your tax %. Social Security payments are based on your INCOME in the years prior to your retirement, not the Social Security taxes you paid in.

[/quote][/QUOTE]

SS tax is capped, and you are not taxed over a certain amount. Thus, including that number skews the system.

With all of my deductions, i'm at 14% and the single mother is at 4%. Mortgage deduction or not, she still pays a lower amount. Both in dollars and in % of dollars.

If i make 200k and i save 50k and put it in the bank... that is money that wont be taxed right now on consumption of goods ... thus lowering my total tax burden. The poor mother doesnt have that. If you want to base tax burden on consumption (for sales tax) it's all the same.

You number is skewed because the poor mother does not save any money, and the rich person has capped SS tax. NOW, if i make 200k and spend all of it on one year... my tax burden is actually higher than that poor mother...

PhillyFan - The master of Trickle Down/Voodoo Economics!

Thank you, CPT_Doom. I do note that PhillyFan did not comment on the profligacy of the previous GOP administrations in Arizona, which went a long way towards putting his state in the hole its in. In fact, the state tax-cutting mania of the 1990s, which was usually detached from any indexing of possible surpluses or changes in the revenue change, has led to a number of the otherwise rather fiscally conservative states falling into the financial hole. In some cases, Republican governors or legislatures have been forced to raise taxes or develop gimmicks to avoid slashing services, while in others, like New York State, the GOP leader who never met a program or union he couldn't kiss up to (for reelection purposes) is trying to leave it to the Legislature to solve the fiscal disaster he helped to create. Maybe more sales taxes and other fees on those "lucky duckies," you know?

uhhhhhhhh, our budget problems are 90% caused by the alt fuels disaster... which is why i voted to the lady...i mean dude, who is in office now.

Well, i knew i was lowballing this poor poor woman with 2 kids.... actual numbers....

25k income... head of household deduction of 6,900.... 3 total deduction of 3k each (9k). Taxable income is 9,100 for the whole year... totals 910 bux in taxes. Now if i look at the earned income credit of a person with 2 kids at 9100, it's a CREDIT of 3,630. Thus this poor woman pays ZERO income tax and receives 2,517 in FREE money from the Govt.

If you want a TRUE % of tax, the free money should offset any gas tax or sales tax she pays. There is NO way she pays a higher % of tax than myself when it's all said and done....