Good News

[Stephen Eisel]

Consumer Confidence Hits 6 Year High


GM makes a profit


4.5% unemployment rate



Real After-Tax Per Capita Personal Income Has Risen By 9.9 Percent – Nearly $3,000 Per Person sice 2000


The Economy Has Now Experienced Over Five Years Of Uninterrupted Growth, Averaging 2.9 Percent A Year Since 2001. Real GDP grew a strong 3.1 percent in 2006.

Strong Economic Growth Has Helped Produce Record Levels Of Tax Revenue, Which Is Helping Reduce The Federal Deficit And Meet Our Goal Of A Balanced Budget. Record tax revenues helped us reach the President's goal of cutting the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule. Receipts have increased nearly 35 percent since the tax relief was fully implemented in 2003, and the deficit has declined by $165 billion in the last two years.

[ryan costa]

How much of the federal deficit is being masked by robbing the social security surplus this year?

Do unemployment stats mean anything? I've never reported myself unemployed or registered for any unemployment programs, despite frequent periods of unemployment.

Can Bush be taken seriously every time he claims to want to cut taxes and shrink the deficit?

Are mortgage defaults and credit card defaults up?

Are states and corporations robbing pension funds faster than ever?

Are the statistics you mentioned a misleading sham?

[Stephen Eisel]

How much of the federal deficit is being masked by robbing the social security surplus this year?

Do unemployment stats mean anything? I've never reported myself unemployed or registered for any unemployment programs, despite frequent periods of unemployment.

Can Bush be taken seriously every time he claims to want to cut taxes and shrink the deficit?

Are mortgage defaults and credit card defaults up?

Are states and corporations robbing pension funds faster than ever?

Are the statistics you mentioned a misleading sham?

I am sure. If the unemployment stats were 9% or 10% then it would matter to you ... The Government has been writing IOU's to the Social Security fund for years.. Obviously, since 9-11, the tax cuts have worked. We are lucky that the US did not end up in a depression after 9-11. Tax cuts are bad?? Is givng me more of my gross pay a bad thing??? Are you saying that taxing is better for the economy than letting individuals do what they want with their own money? Mortgage and credit card defaults are up because of lenders taking a risk on people with poor credit ratings. Please, tell me how you define a good economy???

[ryan costa]

I don't know what income bracket you are in. If you make under 80 grand a year you are paying more taxes than you were before reaganomics(adjusted for inflation). Considering social security taxes are just regressive income taxes that are supposed to be earmarked for social security programs(but are instead robbed to partially mask a few hundred billion of the federal deficit each year). But straight income taxes on most Americans have also risen since the Reaganomics era. Government spending and size has greatly increased during and since the Reagan Era, despite the slogans.

Our currency is also poised to collapse. This is due to the endemic Trade Deficits, which basically result in the endemic Federal deficits. Though the federal deficits are greatly ballooned by Reaganomics tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations.

A sign of a healthy economy would be de-industrialized areas still industrialized. A sign of a healthy economy would be the absence of oil addiction(absence of 90 percent of housing subdivisions and shopping centers and small scale exurban industrial parks built in the last 20 years).

[Stephen Eisel]

I don't know what income bracket you are in. If you make under 80 grand a year you are paying more taxes than you were before reaganomics(adjusted for inflation). Considering social security taxes are just regressive income taxes that are supposed to be earmarked for social security programs(but are instead robbed to partially mask a few hundred billion of the federal deficit each year). But straight income taxes on most Americans have also risen since the Reaganomics era. Government spending and size has greatly increased during and since the Reagan Era, despite the slogans.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in05tr.xls

http://www.letxa.com/articles/9

IRS data shows that in 2004, the richest 50% of the taxpayers paid 96.7% of all income taxes. From 1986 to 2004, the share paid by the richest half increased from 93.5% to 96.7%, and the share paid by the richest 1% increased from 25.75% to 36.89%. At the same time, the amount paid by the poorer half decreased from 6.5% in 1986 to 3.3% in 2004. While the poor's contribution was cut in half, the richest Americans saw their contribution increase by nearly 50%. When you get past the propaganda, for the last two decades the rich have been paying more and more while the poor have been paying less and less.

To put it simply, of the $832 billion in personal income taxes collected in 2004, the richest half of the country paid $804 billion while the poorest half only paid $27.4 billion.

Those that make the claim "the tax cuts help the rich" will claim that the reason why the rich paid so much more in taxes is because they made so much more money. There is truth to that, though the progressive nature of the tax code also insures that the rich pay more than they should, proportionally speaking. However, the reason for the rich paying so much more is irrelevant to this discussion: If the "rich" are paying 96.7% of the income taxes and the poor are only paying 3.3%, then it's simply common sense that most of any income tax cut will benefit those that are paying it. You can't reduce taxes on someone who isn't paying any.

Are the poor paying taxes? In 2005, a family of four was considered to be at the poverty level if they earned less than $19,350 . If you complete a 2005 1040 considering an income of $19,350 and four family members, you will find that the standard deduction for the couple is $10,000, and an additional $3200 deduction is given for each of the four family members for an additional $12,800. So, in all, the family earning $19,350 has $22,800 in income deductions which means they pay no federal tax. In fact, a family of four will not pay a single dollar in federal tax until the family earns at least $22,800. Since these people pay no taxes whatsoever, a tax cut will obviously not be of any direct benefit to them since they aren't paying taxes to start with. This doesn't make the tax cut a bad idea, but it stands to reason that it won't directly benefit anyone that isn't paying taxes any more than a price reduction in milk won't help anyone that isn't buying milk.

[Stephen Eisel]

A sign of a healthy economy would be de-industrialized areas still industrialized. A sign of a healthy economy would be the absence of oil addiction(absence of 90 percent of housing subdivisions and shopping centers and small scale exurban industrial parks built in the last 20 years).

So, you would like to return to the days of the caveman.. nice

[Stephen Eisel]

reaganomics

LOL.. GDP was increased by 80% (through out his entire presidency) is that bad?? 35 million new jobs, average annual Dow Jones growth of 15%... And you know that Jimmy Carter left him a wonderful economy,lol.... Thanks for the 20% interest rates Jimmy...

[Stephen Eisel]

How much of the federal deficit is being masked by robbing the social security surplus this year?

Tax cuts do not create a deficit. Government spending creates a deficit. Yes, the government uses Social Security Funds. There is currently more money being payed into the Social Security than is being paid out to SS recipients. I think that the Johnson Admin started this feeding frenzy on the extra SS funds.. It currently mask the deficit by $150 billion.. Yep, the Government should be investing this surplus rather than spending it...

[Stephen Eisel]

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

"It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates."