You have the option of voting out the 536. The wealthy just keep on taking until we stop them forcibly, a much harder sell.

And when the wealthy are the 536? Like your friends Kennedy, Kerry, Feinstein, Pelosi, Reid, et al?

Your cockeyed (pun intended) view of the world is comical, but when you base your analysis (pun intended) on such wildly inaccurate fiction, the results seldom rise above the level of schoolyard taunts.

Alternative Minimum Tax.

———–
Oh BatShitCrazy, there will always be dishonest people (deadbeats) who skip out on their bills to live here. We’ll get to them.

The rich pay more because their incomes are like that of royalty.

I think cons would have been very happy in ancient Egypt dying while building a pyramid in the hot sun for the one guy with all the money.

PS. Armey shows the degree to which the right wing has become unhinged. The reality of their dismal situation is finally sinking in.

aparna,

I’m sure Rob is even more relieved.

Greg,

Your story is a good one… illustrative of vapid stupidity of our current tax system.

But it is also a pointless exercise. Those on the left who so vehemently defend “progressive” taxation are immune to reason. The inanity and dishonesty your story illustrates are what they thrive on. They breath jealousy and contempt for individual accomplishment like air.

You are not the first to point out the possibility of the “rich” opting out, taking an “early retirement” and choosing to live the rest of their lives on their own, more favorable terms. And when the bill starts to come due for the Dems witless attempts at “recovery” there will be a lot more of us giving careful consideration to that option.

The ‘messenger,’ Greg, is unreliable and partisan—and I offered evidence to prove it.

Conservatives simply don’t grok concepts like “knowledge” and “accountability.”

An interesting blindness, don’t you think?

Jack,

It was your own lack of knowledge about economics that was being discussed. Do try to pay attention, please.

BTW, speaking of the opinions of economics professors (is former ENRON advisor Krugman and NYT shill still a professor?) try reading this. The credentials are far, far more impressive than those of Krugman. Of his two private sector jobs, one, ENRON, went down the tubes, and the other, NYT, ain’t far behind. Helluva a record, that Krugman.

When you can attack the message you attack the messenger.

I’m not quite sure how you can seque from whether Dick Armey’s comments to a rude reporter are appropriate for TV to the direction this thread has gone. Personally, I think that all media (left and right) has become coarse, abusive and down-right rude. I think the smarmy, look down your nose liberal media elites are disgusting and show their superiority complexes every chance they get. I think some of the people in the right media have become too shrill and repetitive. Overall, if I were a public figure and was subjected to some of the drivel these media morons spew, I would have a hard time keeping my tone civil as well.

What I do see is the same tendency in blogs and threads like this. Shrill, knee-jerk, inflammatory, hyperbolic ranting on both sides. While I am decidedly conservative/libertarian, I am willing to discuss reasonably with anyone the merits and demerits of any issue and position. Like any human being though (at least one with a spine), if attacked, I will counter-attack. Instinctive reaction to attack is called “fight or flight”. Suppressing that instinct is not optional, we all do it. Some of us run, some of us fight.

I think what we saw was Mr. Armey simply exercising his instinct to fight.

BTW, speaking of the opinions of economics professors (is former ENRON advisor Krugman…..

Bat One on January 29, 2009 at 12:17 pm

Bat One. Congratulations! Brilliant in your part. With a few strokes on your keyboard, and without actually saying so, you put the failure of ENRON on the shoulders of one man: Krugman.

ENRON failed because of assorted crooks, political machinations (Phil and Wendy Grahm come to mind),a flawed business model, a free for all feeding frenzy by the greedy, and basically being a company that produced nothing but skimmed from everybody. It was a conservative dream, that fell like the sandcastle it was.

Gee, this is really one crappy blog; sure am glad i’m not married to a man like you, rob.

Remember that during the Reagan years your side’s stated goal was to “starve the beast”?

Much to my shame, Republicans didn’t starve the beast they feed it,
Year Revenue Outlays Deficets
2001 1,991.4 1,863.2 +128.2
2002 1,853.4 2,011.2 -157.2
2003 1,782.5 2,160.1 -377.5
2004 1,880.3 2,293.0 -412.7
2005 2,153.9 2,472.2 -318.3
2006 2,407.3 2,655.4 -248.2
2007 2,568.2 2,728.9 -160.7
2008 2,523.6 2,978.5 -454.4

Maybe, we should try starving it and not spend 845 billion more.

Dino,

But it was your big-government enthusiasts that that wrote all those oh-so-complex tax rules in the first place. And now you’re gonna bray about those of us who actual read and take advantage of them? Smells like paradox to me.

Considering what liberals like you clearly don’t know about economics and finance, I’m not the least bit worried.

ENRON failed because of assorted crooks, political machinations … It was a conservative dream, that fell like the sandcastle it was.

ellinas,

A “conservative dream”??? But it was the liberal Krugman who was advising the Enron board of directors, not some conservative.

Let me do the same for you that I just did for H. I read Krugman often, despite my distaste and vehement objection to most of what he says. I also read the writings of the assorted members of the “Krugman Truth Squad” who’ve been around since he abandoned ship at ENRON and went to work for yet another distressed vessel, the NYT instead… long before his Nobel Prize (for some admittedly impressive work on econometric models regarding free trade – back when he was a real economist).

As for the Prize itself, I share the opinion that Krugman’s award has done for the Economics Prize, what the award to Yasser Arafat did for the dignity and honor that was the Nobel Peace Prize.

I trust that if Jeffrey Skilling was to offer his opinion on national economic policy, you would be one of the first to castigate him for his role in the ENRON scandal, without ever bothering to consider what the man had to say.

Explain how spending a trillion dollars we don’t have is going to put all those laid off autoworkers, steelworkers, truckdrivers, bankers, retail clerk, middle managers, car salesmen, property managers, construction workers, framers, roofers, painters, real estate agents, and mortgage processors back to work… never mind all the new workers (legal and illegal!) entering the work force every year.

Bat One on January 29, 2009 at 09:43 am

Explain how spending almost a trillion dollars we did not have and spent on Iraq, is going to put all these laid off autoworkers, steelworkers, truckdrivers, bankers, retail clerk, middle managers, car salesmen, property managers, construction workers, framers, roofers, painters, real estate agents, and mortgage processors back to work… never mind all the new workers (legal and illegal!) entering the work force every year.

I don’t think you can. But I’m certainly willing to give you the chance to actually prove me wrong instead of braying about how Iraqis can vote now.

idiot e makes yet another false equivalence. When your Teleprompter Jesus hands this country over to his terrorist buddies, the only job will be called “slave”.
You know nothing, and it shows.

People only have affect on 0.746% of the 536.

That is not the worst of it. Like SP says, it robbery to confiscate earnings to satisfy jealous hatred of those who generate the wealth. Besides that, it’s just plain stupid. Government cannot manage what they currently confiscate. Why would anyone think they could manage more any better? Government was never intended to equitably distribute wealth. Free markets do that just fine.

e,

… with half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair!

Incidentally, I would think a good deal more of your own “sophisticated weaponry” had you not chosen the slingshot analogy. As I recall, Goliath as big, impressive to look at, and a ponderously slow and rather witless, bellicose braggart. David on the other hand, was quick agile, sure of himself, and in the end, had right on his side. David took out Goliath with but a single shot. Your analogy may well be accurate, but it does neither you nor Dino much credit, does it?

Bat One on January 29, 2009 at 04:14 pm

Jewish feel good stories, are just stories to make the Jews feel good.
You analogy did nothing for me, nor does it apply to me.
However if you wish to equate your self with David, knock your self out.
Notice the Philistines are still there.
I will tell you a secret: You may appear to write and argue well, and your writings may seem well thought and impressive, but you are a a ponderously slow, and rather witless bellicose braggart.

The rich pay more because their incomes are like that of royalty.

Those who are smart enough to become “rich” are also smart enough to know how to minimize their tax bill, and live comfortably without worrying about the long hand of government reaching into their pocket. It ain’t exactly rocket science.

One correction in my last post the revenue growth of 13% should read from 2005 to 2007. They have not given the numbers for 2008. I typed it wrong. Sorry.

You(r) analogy did nothing for me, nor does it apply to me.

My dear, ellinas, its your analogy, not mine. I merely extended it to point out just how poorly thought out the choice was.

Notice the Philistines are still there.

True enough, but if it wasn’t for you, and Dino, and Jack, and Hannitized, those of us on/in the Right wouldn’t have the chance to demonstrate our prowess with rhetorical slingshots. I, for one, will be forever grateful for the target practice.

So in short, fuck Krugman and the business geniusess like him, whether they stand to the right of Krugman or to the left.

e,

Glib aside, you seem to be suggesting a sort of litmus test of who should be listened to, based apparently on the individual’s chosen profession. That strikes me as more than a little myopic and unhelpful. Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Mao Tse-Dung, Saddam Hussein, and even Dino have all said some things worthy of serious consideration at one time or another. (So, by the way, have you.)

Ideas should be examined on their own merit, not on who first uttered them. That’s why I torture myself by reading Krugman in the first place. And perhaps its why you bother reading what I post, too.

Neiman. I am not technically correct. I am correct period

You also say: “what you fail to realize is that it is mostly, in common vernacular, used for many decades applied to the Jews as an offensive, vulgar term…..”

Maybe here in the USA. Not where I came from, and where I was educated. Not my fault, nor that of my educators that people of Germanic and Anglosaxon extraction (commonly refereed to as WASP’s) are so racist and bigoted.
To us, the Semites were and are just what the word means: People of Semitic extraction, or if you will descendants of Shem.

You further say: “Next, you are wrong in the sense that Jews and Palestinians in Israel have gotten along quite well for the most part, with so-called Palestinians prospering there and participating fully in the democratic process and living in peace”

Never said nor claimed such a thing.

The rest of your post assumes that Israelis/Jews/Hebrews are some kind of loving people sitting around a big bonfire singing kumbaya!
Nothing could be further from the truth. The ancient hatred and struggle keeps going on.
Both sides are guilty of atrocities and provocations.

Mr. Armey’s remarks were meant to be demeaning and they should be taken as such and have no place in the exchange of ideas. Okay, I have said that, and now let me tell you what I really think. I am a woman, so according to Democrats my feelings on this trumps all you men sooo…..

I am sick of tired of the weak-kneed, lily livered, spineless Republicans and pundits I have had to listen to for years. How these people got in the position they did, I can’t explain for the life of me. The elected officials are just as bad. They have allowed the opposition to steam roll them for too long.
The things said about the former president have been shameful and very few stood up and defended him. It seems that being in the minority has helped them grok that Democrats got back in power precisely through the constant demonization and obfuscation that this woman demonstrated.

It seems that Mr. Armey is as sick and tired as me, but should have said, “Enough already you old shrew, you and your kind have directly led to this debacle and now you are taking full advantage.” He could have said far worse than that little sexist comment he made and I would have given the chance just once to blast one of these stupid people.

If you aren’t mad at congress and the president, be it republican or democrat, you really haven’t been paying any attention. I think Armey’s comments reflect the frustration of the many who hear “babble babble babble” and will not (and probably can not) discuss the real issues at hand.

Wow you “Grok” things, I read “Stranger in a Strange Land” too.”

Grok this story.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men — the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share”? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

As for your “knowledge” somehow I don’t thing the opinion of Paul Krugman in his column “The Conscience of a Liberal” is much better. I guess its OK to take the word of a left wing mouthpiece.

I’ll probably regret asking Dino but,

How is it that you liberals say control of the wealth is concentrated in too few hands when those hands are in the millions of American citizens, yet propose to confiscate it and thereby placing control of it in the hands of 536 elected officials? Do you not see the difference between millions and 536 to ridiculously fewer hands?

Do you think his remarks were appropriate for television?

Bottom line: The tax cuts were part of a larger shift in policy that has taken us to the edge of collapse. Unless of course, you think the bush years were a triumph of conservative economic policy.

Do tell me how that’s not a correct interpretation.

I actually agree that spending until we are broke is not good, not to end social programs, but because insolvency worse. I would like for you to explain how spending 845 Billion is going to help. If it is bad for Reagan to spend until the government is out of money why is it good to spend money just because the President has a D after his name?

Greg in Alabama on January 29, 2009 at 05:22 pm

It is not going to help. It is time we tighten our collective belt and live within our means.

I didn’t ask you how it compared to comedy shows on television. Nor did I ask about your suspicions of Dian Sawyer.

The direct question was do you think his remarks were respectful and worthy of television?

This may be a little off what the actual post is about. The amount of taxes paid by the rich increased because they had more money to spend. Which is what they did with the extra money. The resulting monies went to small businesses. The term trickle down economics used to be used. Now this lame stimulus package is putting the money in the hands of Government to dole out as they wish. And their explanation is that it will go to the small businesses eventually. I guess like the old trickle down economics they so vehemently opposed. Just flim flam artists. That’s all they are.

ellinas,

You are not nearly as clever as you might like to appear, my friend. Sorry!

The War in Iraq was never billed as an attempt to put autoworkers, steelworkers, truckdrivers, or any of the others back to work. The “stimulus plan” of Obama and the Democrats is being sold as an economic recovery proposal although history, foreign and domestic, and any number of highly qualified experts in the field of economics and fiscal policy have all argued against this particular approach to our economic difficulties. Nobody is arguing that the constipation of the credit system and the deflationary recession should be dealt with quickly and effectively. Certainly not me. But there is ample evidence that what is being proposed by the Left simply ain’t gonna do it, and will in fact make our long-term economic situation even less tenable.

Those on the Left seem to be of the rather witless opinion that it is somehow “your turn” and thus you are justified in whatever stupid harmful actions you take. Just as Obama has brought moral equivalence to foreign affairs and national defense policy, an attitude of entitlement seems to taken control of our nation’s economic policy. “We can do what we want ‘cause we’re in charge,” is the clarion call of Democrats, with no thought to whether their actions will actually accomplish their stated goals.

You and I have crossed swords rhetorically in the past, but I have never regarded you as the sort of myopic, self-serving, witless fool that Dino presents. I thought you had more intelligence. And more class.
Bat One on January 29, 2009 at 11:32 am

Bat One. Sorry you missed my point. I was not trying to appear clever. I, like you, am clever. By changing a few words on your as always wonderfully written piece, I was was trying to convey, that IMO Iraq was a misadventure we could not afford nor was necessary (let’s argue the points of the war another time), and that money could have been spent (or not for that matter), on issues far more important to our country. The neocon propaganda machine, showing us pictures of Iraqis and their purple(?) finger as proof of almost a trillion of dollars well spent, only works on idiots and simps.

And please do not attempt again to slay Dino and me with your slingshot. You need bunker busters for that. And you, last time I checked, lacked such sophisticated weaponry.

Yeah, we felt like that when bush won in 2004.

There’s always emigration. I hear Iraq is nice now.

Alternative Minimum Tax.

I stand corrected.

Dino,

Your illiterate rants against tax cuts as a tool to foster economic growth are getting awfully tedious. And at the same time, you have yet to convince anybody that you have the faintest idea what you’re talking about.

So why not explain instead how you think the alternative, massive deficit spending by the federal government and tax rate hikes, will have a positive effect on our long-term economic growth? Explain how spending a trillion dollars we don’t have is going to put all those laid off autoworkers, steelworkers, truckdrivers, bankers, retail clerk, middle managers, car salesmen, property managers, construction workers, framers, roofers, painters, real estate agents, and mortgage processors back to work… never mind all the new workers (legal and illegal!) entering the work force every year.

I don’t think you could do so, even if it was true. But I’m certainly willing to give you the chance to actually prove me wrong instead of braying about it.

”Didn’t we already give them a break at the top?”

bush

Rather then “unhinged” as Dino stupidly describes him, Dick Armey is remarkably fair, balanced, and objective in his assessment of congressionally-legislated economic policy. Speaking of the income re-distribution component of the Bush tax cuts he says,

It’s wrong policy whether it comes from Republicans or Democrats. It makes no sense.

As for Ms. Walsh, her petty attempts at sniping at Armey, a man who clearly is her intellectual and moral superior, don’t warrant the sort of respect H seems to think is her due. Nor has Christianity got anything to do with it. Your point, or attempt at one, is specious nonsense and you are smart enough to know that.

On a related note, I am so sick of hearing that the Bush tax cuts were for the people at the “very top” of the income brackets from people like Chris Matthews. No wonder Armey was getting irate. It just isn’t true.

I wondered if Rob was correct and decided to see if the tax cuts were for everybody and I took Jack’s advice and tried to “Grok” the effect of the tax cuts as a whole. I found some interesting data that I thought I would share with everyone. It is from the Congressional Budget Office.

To understand the report you have to know the following:

Lawmakers enacted three major tax bills between 2001
and 2003. The Economic Growth and Taxpayer Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) lowered rates, increased
credits, and offered relief from marriage penalties
and from the alternative minimum tax (AMT). The Job
Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 (JCWAA)
increased depreciation allowances for some property and
altered certain provisions concerning operating losses.
The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2003 (JGTRRA) accelerated some of the provisions in
EGTRRA and temporarily raised exemption levels for the
AMT. None of the tax provisions in the three laws is permanent, and all of the provisions will expire by 2011.

Here is how they calculate the tax burden:

The analysis assigns taxes to households on the basis of who bears the burden of the taxes. In particular, it assumes the following:

1. Households bear the burden of all taxes that they pay
directly, specifically, individual income taxes and the
employee’s share of payroll taxes.

2. Households pay excise taxes according to their consumption
of taxed goods, such as tobacco and alcohol.
In the case of excise taxes on intermediate goods, such
as components of consumer goods, households bear
the taxes in proportion to their overall consumption.

3. The burden of taxes levied on businesses actually falls
on households. In line with most economists, CBO
assumes that the employer’s share of payroll taxes falls
on employees and thus assigns those payments to employees
both as income and taxes paid. The analysis
assumes that corporate income taxes fall on the owners
of capital and allocates those liabilities–again, both as
income and as taxes–to households in proportion to
their income from interest, dividends, rents, and capital
gains.8 Aug 2008 report.

Here is the CBO determined.

Under current law–and the assumption that incomes grow at a constant rate between 2001 and 2014–the total effective federal tax rate for all taxpayers drops from 21.5 percent in 2001 to 19.6 percent in 2004 before reversing course and climbing over the next decade (see the top panel in Table 2). From the 2004 low of 19.6 percent,
the overall effective tax rate jumps to 21.4 percent
in 2005 as most features of JGTRRA and JCWAA disappear–
decreasing the child credit, lessening the relief
from marriage penalties, and raising the AMT. The effective
rate climbs slowly over the next five years, to 22.1
percent in 2010, primarily because the unindexed AMT
affects more and more people and the growth of real incomes
pushes taxpayers into higher tax brackets.

So, to make a long story short, the Bush tax cut pushed down the effective tax rate for everyone. It began to go up for the middle class as their income rose and more people got hit with the Alternate Means Tax. Now for those of you that don’t know the AMT was introduced by the Tax Reform Act of 1969 and became operative in 1970. It was intended to target 155 high-income households that had been eligible for so many tax benefits that they owed little or no income tax under the tax code of the time. (By the way, both Houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats in 1969) Make your own conclusions.

Shut up, DINO.

Jewish feel good stories, are just stories to make the Jews feel good.

The anti- Semite speaks.

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one erson receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when that other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they worked for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

—The late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 to 2005 —

I answered, doofus, learn to read.

I thought the comments were funny, and about par for the course when it comes to talking head punditry.

But I imagine you’ll wrap yourself in faux outrage because Armey is a conservative and you lack a sense of humor.

Dino:

You have the option of voting out the 536. The wealthy just keep on taking until we stop them forcibly, a much harder sell.

Though as things deteriorate in the economy, that option becomes more likely.

You’d rather forcibly TAKE from other people what you CANNOT manage do on your own, accumulate wealth, but that’s the magic of the system. ANYONE and EVERYONE have the opportunity to accumulate as much wealth as they can manage and like. OPPORTUNITY and NOT GUARANTEE.

You’re poor and advocate robbery Dino because you’re lazy and you’re a coward. You give up in the face of IMAGINED difficulties. I on the other hand went from welfare in a housing project to gainfully employed and a homeowner because I DIDN’T tell myself that it was too hard, too much work, and too scary.

If you had the courage of your convictions, you’d not expect the state using its police powers to do your job for you. You’d commit armed robbery of rich people directly. Force to take what is presently theirs is what you are inferring. Force to make people adopt socialism is what you yourself have advocated. So, what is stopping you?

Fear and common sense. Good thing you still have them. Congratulations, you’re human.

Beyond that, I lay no bets.