No, but the wealthy provide an extremely large tax revenue. And most of them control/own businesses. What's going to stop them from taking that with them, along with potential jobs and tax revenue?

No way enough rich folks leave the US to matter unless the marginal rate tops 50%. Going back to the rate during the nineties will make no difference in who calls the US home.

The problem with Gingrich is that he never moved away from the 'minority' mindset, and by that I mean he undermined his policies (which I thought were pretty good and would LOVE to have him in the House right now, where I'm sure he'd but heads with the Prez, because, well, he's Newt) by his negative attacks. It was his undoing. So while the Dems demonized him (most likely because they were stung by his personal politics), the people didn't like his style either... and it consumed him so much that he went after impeaching Clinton (which was highly unpopular) instead of working out policy that cost his party seats... and him the Speakership.

Let's think about this logically. You own a business. Your business is making a tremendous profit, let's say $10 million a year. Which means you net something like $7 million a year.

Now, you are trying to tell me that these people, with supposedly good business sense, are going to take those companies giving them $7 million a year, close them down, and open them up somewhere else? That doesn't make any sense.

Read it.

It was essentially an individual's meeting(s) summary dissemenated to a slew of other people. It wasn't some sort of official document that gave careful analysis of the meeting's(s') content, it was this guy's opinion of what was discussed. His assessment that he shared with others.

No official sources, British or American, have denied it's accuracy, nor said that it was an incorrect representation of the meeting. Of course, it is entirely possible that what this individual thought was:
...was really the complete opposite of what really happened at the meeting. That is probably the more likely scenario, that things were exactly the opposite of what he thought they were. All this guy was was the minutes keeper of top secret meetings at the highest level of the British government. That's probably an entry level position. Most likely a high school drop-out earning minimum wage.

He wasn't the official anything except attendee. This was HIS summary of the meetings. HIS opinion. They reflect nothing more than that. These aren't the official meeting minutes for anyone.

Let's put it this way. Would you rather invest in the government's clumsy, inefficient and nonsensical business, or would you rather invest in a business that needs to make money in order to survive?

Let's say you raise taxes on a business owner by $100k. It either comes out of his pocket or he reduces his work force by three jobs. A certain percentage will go one way, a certain percentage another. Let's call it 50/50.

So, are three jobs worth $200k in extra tax revenue? A welfare state enthusiast would say yes, a "teach a horse to drink" enthusiast would say no.

I side with the latter.

1) The government is inefficient. That extra $200k is not going to buy much.

2) If you aren't constantly creating jobs in the private sector, your economy will stagnate. Just look at France.

3) If you increase the public dole, you will create a higher crime rate. People don't steal out of necessity, they steal out of boredom and a feeling of disenfranchisement. Nothing enhances that more than a stagnant job market where business owners have little incentive to expand. This is a vicious circle. Ever wonder why Wal-Mart never puts a store in an urban area with zero growth?

4) We shouldn't punish the same people who are driving economic growth.

5) You shouldn't whine about someone "not paying his fair share" when he pays ten times the taxes you pay for the same services.

6) Any tax increase on the rich invariably nails the middle class squarely in the forehead. Rich people have good accountants.

Glen, c'mon now. You have to keep it real, and this isn't keeping it real. Your basic premise is that even though not a single person denies the authenticity of the memo, that it is completely the opposite of what the meeting really was. Your position is that the person, Matthew Rycroft, Tony Blair's private secretary on foreign affairs, got it completely wrong. That this memo, which was distributed to David Manning, the British Ambassador to the United States, and "Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell", marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY", deserves no more weight than the doodles on a note pad. Furthermore, it is your contention that this memo, being completely wrong on the issues surrounding the most important aspect of Blair's government's tenure, was sent to all these people that were all at the meeting and not ever corrected.

C'mon Glen, keep it real. That's ludicrous. You're entering Dutch territory.

I don't think this addresses the point I made at all about business owners not closing shop in the US and running away. I have not argued for or against higher tax rates. I'm moderate when it comes to fiscal issues, but I want to comment on this:
That's a dumb argument, because if you answer B the logical conclusion is that we don't ever collect any taxes. We both agree that businesses should be taxed, an area we may disagree on is to what extent.

Taxes are usually percentages, so let's say it is raised two percentage pts, like what flere was talking about earlier. That means to increase his tax burden by $100k, that his total income is somewhere around $5 million.

Now, assuming he is a good businessperson, each of his workforce generates a profit, let's say 10%. So he cuts three jobs, profit goes down $10k. Now his total income is $4.99 million. So why does he cut the jobs? If the jobs are not generating profit, they should be cut anyway. If they are generating profit, they won't be cut because of a higher tax rate.

It also doesn't keep people from investing in their business. In fact, higher tax rates encourage investment in the business, because money put back into the business is tax free.

Jim: I hope you aren't working on Front Office Economist.

1) Do you have any proof that government is less efficient than the average private company? If you mean that money gets spent poorly due to laws I'll agree, but having worked in private industry I have a hard time believing the average company operates more efficiently than the average government agency.

2) We had higher taxes during the nineties and higher job growth. AFAIK job creation will generall only decline if taxes are clearly punitive. A couple of percentage points higher than the current level is unlikely to make any difference.

3) I won't even get into this, but do you have any evidence to back your claim?

4) Raising marginal tax rates a couple of percenatge points is hardly punishment and as Biggles says, why tax at allif this is true?

5) We can have an honest disagreement here. I believe that like insurance rates those with more should pay more for the protection of their assets. Also, according to recent studies the overall tax burden is almost flat across all income levels. (in percentage terms of course)

6) Here I agree wholeheartedly.

What's interesting is that both people who replied resorted to ad hominems right off the bat.

Once a business reaches a certain size, it can no longer tie its work force directly to output. When costs rise, layoffs result. That's how it works in real life, we've all seen it happen. Most recently in response to astronomical rises in health care costs.

Raise taxes on business and you'll be able to watch the results if you stake out the unemployment office the following Monday.

On the efficiency of government: there's absolutely no pressure on government to run itself properly. It's layer after layer of bureaucracy, often with France-like job security. It's often said that private industry can do things better.

On crime rates. Pretty easy to show that it peaks with males in their late teens. Yet this group is the least likely to suffer from the effects of poverty (they often still are supported by a parent) and least likely to take responsibility for children of their own. Yet they are among the most affected by unemployment and lack of educational opportunities. They're bored. Crime rates dropped both with lower unemployment and with demographic chance - the baby boom ended. Now, the population of teens is rising, and it would be disasterous to do anything that would increase unemployment.

I'm not sure businesses should be taxed at all. To me, at least, the fairest solution would be a sales tax on non-essentials (everything but food, clothing and health care). Get rid of all business and income taxes. Money is just paper until you purchase something with it.

The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes. The marginal tax rate increases the more you make. The curve of % paid in taxes to income is not flat - not until you get pretty high up. The bottom %s pay no taxes at all.

I'm not sure I get this "insurance" concept. Should the police, then, pay more attention to crimes that involve rich people? They tend to live in lower-crime areas, so you'd think they'd need less attention.

Well now you are taking what I'm saying and stretching it to the extreme. I'm saying that the infamous Downing Street Memo isn't the smoking gun that people claim it is. If you really honestly read it, it is this guy's opinion. It isn't some official government document declaring that the UK felt that "the intelligence was fixed around policy". It was the author's opinion. It was an actual document. It was marked as top secret. There is no point in denying those things. It is what it is. What it isn't, is an official finding by a government declaring that intelligence findings were being skewed. It is a summary of a meeting or meetings, written by one individual.

Jim, I read again what I wrote, and then read it again. Nary a personal attack was to be found. I have no idea what you are talking about. And this is the second time that you have accused me of 'attacking' you, when I have done nothing of the sort. I don't know where that is coming from.

You are confusing two issues. What you are talking about are the effects of a direct tax on a business, such as the sales tax that you reccommend later in your post, or a flat monetary tax on a business. Adding costs like that increase the cost of doing business, which decreases profitability. Income taxes have no effect on profitability. The former effects businesses because in all industries there are less successful businesses that operate with razor thin profit margins. But an increase in the income tax does not effect these businesses that are just making it, because if they are just making it they don't have much profit, and if they don't have much profit the extra couple of percentage pts don't matter much, if at all if the increases are only in the higher brackets. You can look at Britian, Scandanavia, and even the USA in the '70's and '90's as places with good growth with higher income tax brackets than we have now. And the long term capital gains tax was cut by 5% pts a couple of years ago and the job and wage market has been terrible.

What you are talking about has an effect at the extremes, but not on the 5-10% increase range. Again though, I'm not sure if it's a good move to raise taxes like that, but it wouldn't have the drastic effects that you are implying.

Actually it wasn't the author's opinion, it was the opinion of the head of MI6, Britain's CIA, which was probably also then the opinion of the British government. You could argue that the British were wrong, at the very least you have to admit that it is a strong piece of evidence if our biggest ally was saying this at the time, not after the fact when the meme started to gain steam.

You're missing the point, but I will give up after this. My post had nothing to do with wanting people to like the U.S. because that would just be nice and sweet. Nor was I referring to wanting some Muslim terrorist to like the U.S. Nor was my point that by acting differently that it would eliminate terrorist attempted attacks. Nor was my point that we should stop supporting Israel. No my point was pretty clear. Caring about what other countries think about the U.S. means that we ensure other western countries (and yes, that includes France) will cooperate in the war on terror by sharing intelligence, and soldiers, and money. You should care what other countries think because it is in the U.S.'s direct interests to care. Unfortunately, I cant' stand the shortsighted attitude you share with the Bush administration. I am afraid you are sadly mistaken if you believe the U.S. can go it alone in the "war on terror" by not caring about those who can directly help in that war think. Not too mention helping in all other areas of diplomatic issues that are directly important to U.S. interests, whether its trade negotiations, etc.

I just went back and re-read the text of the memo, because it has been some time since I arrived at my assessment of it.

The "intelligence fixed on policy" tidbit is either the opinion of the individual referred to as "C", almost certainly Dearlove(as you described), or the opinion of the author I still don't believe this represents the "smoking gun" that the anti Bush admin folks claim it is.

Jim: Well I had bunch of things, but I lost the post. Suffice it to say that I think you tend to state thigs as facts without presenting the evidence that they are facts. I also don't think a joke based on your products is really an attack.

I did find the chart that shows that the overall tax burden for all Americans is pretty close to flat.

I think as soon as the President completes his promise to fire that Bush guy for leaking classified material to the Press, everything will be fine. :)

In this case, to the two dissenters, I was not using the word attack. I was using the milder term ad hominem, which indicates that both were making irrelevant personal remarks.

I was an economics major in college, among other majors, so I'm not completely ignorant to factors affecting the economy. I cringe every time idiots like John Edwards open their mouths. While I am a social liberal and want to support the Democrats, every time I listen to them I hear this populist gobbledygook that makes me want to vomit.

Your chart ignores quite a few important factors, such as employee health care benefits and government benefits, while cherry-picking specific taxes on booze and cigarettes, which poorer people tend to spend more on per capita.

Eight percent of all income is transfered from the middle and upper classes to the poor through government programs only half represented in your chart (money goes out). That has a huge effect on the numbers.

In addition, the chart does not count anything for the benefit of having your children educated at taxpayer expense. Dollar bills alone do not tell the entire story. Suffice it to say, I don't think you're looking at the big picture here.


Obviously, the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. But their analysis is sound here, aside from the editorializing about what's fair and what isn't. As someone who grew up in the middle class and hopes some day to leave it, I find populism - the Bart Simpson-Inspired Theory of Dragging Everyone Down to the Lowest Common Denominator - a bigger threat to American prosperity than anything.

I don't think the chart misrepresents anything. I wish it broke things down more than by 20% chunks, but its methodology is right there for everyone to see. The Heritage stuff you quote hides a good chunk of its methodology.

I'm very confused by the second paragraph of the Heritage piece. What does equal numbers of peoplehave to do with it and what exactly do they mean by "taxes and social safety net spending"? Knowing the picture they want to present, I'd like to see more about their methodology.

The third paragraph is a bit ridiculous. Since the unemployed are in the bottom quartile it seems to be saying, "If the unemployed weren't unemployed they would make more money." Without getting into any arguments on why people are unemployed, their statement is rather useless.

We can disagree on proper rates of taxation and still have an honest argument. What I can't let go unanswered are claims that there is a direct relationship between tax rates and employment/growth. There just isn't any evidence that they are directly related. As I've said before, if you can prove that a lower rate of tax will directly lead to higher employment please be sure to mention me in your Nobel acceptance speech.

Ignoring and shooting down anyone who disagrees with you, sounds familiar.

That is a total non-sequitur. Living with one's parents has no impact on the likelihood of being in poverty. It only means that the relevant question is whether the parent is living in poverty..

And on the other hand, if you want me to start citing studies finding strong links between poverty and crime (and finding that poverty is, in fact, the best predictor of crime rates) I can list a bunch of them for you... Some people will dispute exactly how strong the correlation is or what the causal mechanism is, but no one doubts that there is a very definite correlation.

This is something that was pushed by Limbaugh, not the most reliable of sources. The bottom 50% of wage earners make less than $26k. That's it. They add up to 14% of income in the entire country. So, instead of saying "the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes", you could just as easily say that "those that earn 86% of the income pay 96% of the taxes".

But that is before you take away the standard deduction. Of the taxable income, the top 50% of wage earners makes about 95% of the income. So, the "top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes" statement can be restated as, "those that earn 95% of the taxable income pay 96% of the taxes". Not really the inequity that you make it out to be.

And all of this is based off of "adjusted gross income", which means that the numbers are after the tax loopholes are already taken into account. As should be obvious, the tax code greatly benefits the more well-off.

I don't think Jim was saying this was an inequity. Others have said this, but only when taking the opposite viewpoint.

I think you're missing my point, which is that kids in their late teens are least likely to have responsibility for supporting a family.

I would never question the link between poverty in an area and crime. I would, however, question anyone who says crime is directly caused by need in an individual. It's much more about whether or not the person feels connected to the community at large. Poverty creates disenfranchisement. Disenfranchisement creates crime.


Going back to other responses. Given my politics, invoking Rush Limbaugh is kind of like someone from the religious right confusing Joe Lieberman with Michael Moore.

This is the Heritage Foundation report from which I quoted:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfm

Again, they have their biases, but the research does point out why the common liberal misconstructions of census data don't fly.

It's a common belief that tax cuts spur jobs growth. After a minute of searching, I found one study from New York that talks about this. Of course, it was written in 1999 just as the tech bust was starting. There are other factors, completely unrelated to taxation, that affect the job market.

http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/99/may11_99.htm

Of course, New York remains the most overtaxed state in the country.

I think it's naive to assume that unemployment isn't related to taxation in any way. Businesses pass along their costs. There's no law that I know of that forces consumers to pay state sales tax. It's just accepted that businesses add that cost to your bill.

If a business has less cash, it will cut costs. That often means less hiring, as that's a very quick way to have an impact. No Nobel Prizes here, but I think this is pretty much a basic assumption among economists.

The Tax Foundation has their interesting annual report, which is just a good read on how taxes affect us.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr140.pdf

It's hard not to notice, looking at the charts in this report, the inverse relationship between Tax Freedom Day in a state and average income.

I will say that I've truly appreciated my time living in states without state income taxes and it's really affecting the future decision of where I think I'll end up long term. I think there are some significant changes that need to be made across the board in terms of education, health care, etc., but it seems that pretty much everywhere people want neat answers to their choices or they simply want to make decisions based on what everyone else around the country is doing.

You don't think income taxes have a direct impact on what a business does? A higher income tax rate will reduce the capital on private businesses, and reduce investors flow to invest into public-traded corporations. As for companies moving out of the country, many companies incorporate in tax-friendly and legal-friendly companies. If a company has the ability to shift a workforce to a cheaper climate (outsourcing) with less government restrictions, they will. You may complain all you want about the ethical debate over outsourcing, but the reality is that Americans are still buying products from such companies.

As for Scandanavia, you cannot compare a country like Sweden vs. the US. The size, location, and culture are vastly differnet. I think a Sweden-type system in the US would be out-of-this-world costly and a huge failure. And remember, our growth from the economy came thanks to the .com boom. Did Clinton really reduce spending, or did he just have a big surge in taxable revenue? (Asking, not stating). The President is somewhat limited in what he can do in economic matters. Bush is a wreckless spender, I do agree with that.

Looking at this website, 50% of tax revenue comes from the top 5% (@$130,000+ in yearly income). http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Jim: I'll freely admit that taxation is a factor in spending, but its not the only factor and its probably not even one of the most important factors. There has been a general trend each decade since the fifties, tax rates have declined and growth has also declined. I'm not saying the two are causal, but there just isn't much evidence that tax rates directly effect growth of business.

You also can't say taxation is always a net reduction for all business. What do the extra taxes get used for? Its possible that individual businesses or a whole category of businesses will come out ahead even if their taxes increase due to subsidies or improvements that benefit their bottom line.

Again, its just impossible to say a few points higher tax rate will lead to slower growth.

As for the Heritage report, I'd still like to see more of the methodology. Heritage has been known to fudge numbers in a way that sells their ideology.

Galaxy: Who cares if the top 5% pay 50%? What percentage of income does that top 5% have? They get taxed on income, not population.

I don't complain about outsourcing. I think it's fine.

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...&postcount=125

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...&postcount=125

That's just simply untrue.


Let me clarify: I would have supported both Bosnia & Somalia if we went in with considerably more of a presence and more clear objectives. At the time, both operations seemed half-assed and wishy-washy to me.

To give examples, the half-assedness of the Somalia operation is what led directly to the events surrounding Blackhawk Down. Either go in with the proper amount of men and equipment to achieve your mission objectives, or don't. Clinton, so early in his Presidency, didn't want to commit so many troops - that was a mistake.

The wishy-washiness of the Bosnia operation(s) led directly to scenarios where genocide was happening under our noses and our troops either didn't have clearance to intervene, or weren't properly positioned to intervene.


I feel very much the same way. I supported our invasion of Afghanistan and think it's a real tragedy that because we've diverted so much to Iraq, we've essentially left the mission unfinished there.

There's 21,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. There was never many more than that and by all accounts, things are going relatively well.

Do you suspect Al Qaeda still trains there? If so, then I would be more inclined to agree. But I don't think that's the case anymore.

Of course it has to do with the percentage of the population. The richest people in our country pay at least half our tax revenue. That seems fair? And you think they should pay more?

According to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances from 2004, the top 10% income earners own 67.6% of the nation's wealth. I don't see what's so unfair about expecting them to pay a similar share of the taxes..

I've always thought that the income tax is used as a proxy for a wealth tax (which in certain respects would make more sense), and even though the tax is progressive with respect to incomes, it's actually regressive with respect to wealth.

Define "fair share".

Galaxy: By your reasoning every person should pay the same exact dollar amount of taxes? My bill and Bill Gates' bill should be dollar for dollar even?

What? You mean you should pay the same exact dollar amount, or the same % rate? I would be for a flat % tax. Why should people who have worked hard and taken huge risks in most cases, be punished for higher taxes? It's not their fault that a corrupt government has a spending problem. They are contributing more to society in terms of donating/giving back, employement, and creating the services and products we need/want. However, I believe we need to cut our expenses to where the tax revenue is in the first place.

Well then population numbers don't mean anything. Even at a flat percentage the richest will still pay far more than an equal number of the poorest. And again I'll point out that when all tax revenue is taken into account we're almost at a flat rate.

As for balancing the budget, I don't think it can be done without a tax increase. Given that FICA taxes are a net positive right now where can you find 350 billion to cut?

Start with Iraq/defense, reforming welfare, social security and Medicare/Medicaid, and the pork that takes up a lot of money.

That's simply not true, unless you cherry-pick taxes and completely ignore welfare and other benefits.

You can't use SS or Medicare because as I stated FICA taxes are currently a net positive.

Iraq and Afghanistan will come in at under 100 billion, so lets say you cut 80 billion there. Welfare reform is maybe 20 billion tops. Where does the other 250 billion come from?

When you say I'm cherry picking taxes, what taxes will make it more progressive that aren't being used? Show me some real numbers that use the whole tax burden. The Heritage report hides the methodology, so I while I don't doubt the math, I don't know what numbers they are using for things such as social safety net spending.

That would be a huge mistake. It would discourage the middle and upper middle classes from saving for retirement, or for schooling for their children, or to upgrade their houses.

And with rich people, it would be incentive to stuff money in mattresses, leave the work force, and not invest in stock. That would greatly affect the stock market and would keep companies cash-poor, meaning much more unemployment.

I also think it's a bad idea to let the government poke into what we own. The IRS is a massive enough bureaucracy as it is.

That's just not true. Tax Freedom Day was never later than April 7 in the '50s, never later than April 12 until 1968. Taxes remained constant until Clinton took office, then rose sharply to a May 3 peak in 2000. Bush's cut set it back into the range we were in from 1968-1994.

If not for the tech boom, it's possible Clinton's tax increases could have been devastating. Bush has not been a great president by any means. His legacy will be the Iraq war, which is a monumental disaster. But I believe he helped stop what would have been a long recession stemming from the combination of higher taxes and the tech bust.

From everything I've read about the economy, shifts are gradual. A few points here will always lead to some form of readjustment. It's not like you can tax and tax and then a switch goes off saying you've gone too far.

I know these theories won't be popular with the partisans, but here me out.

As inefficient as our government may or may not be, the reality is that the contemporary form of American government taxation and spending policies are the best in the world at encouraging investment, protecting the wealthy and providing services to the poor. Could it be better? Yes, through some significant tweaks -- but that gets into politics.

The size of the federal budget and the role of monetary policy allows for the greatest protection against depressions and panics around. Since the advent of Keynesian policies in this country, we haven't had a single depression and few if any panics -- maybe Black Monday in '87 -- and relatively short and mild recessions compared to historical patterns. It's not simply a matter of globalization. Other countries have continued to have boom and busts economies around the world. But the size of our federal budget allows the government to keep pump primed when necessary and control policy in a way other countries haven't figured out how to do.

So, in essence, no matter how much either side wants to complain, the size of our government is a necessary evil to maintain a steady economic growth pattern that diminishes the risk for recessions and depressions. I think that's a fair trade off.

In regards to taxing policy, I think it's worth noting that progressive taxation is generally advocated by almost any serious economists of any political persuasion. They may disagree on the range, but progressive taxes are the only way the system works. You'll never hear me say anything about "the rich" paying their "fair share." It won't necessarily be fair. But it's the only way it works.

That said, I think we have some concerns. I think our deficit spending will choke us in 20-30 years when I'm nearing retirement and Social Security will be bankrupt. I'm saving and investing with the idea Social Security won't be there, but there are millions banking on Social Security and something will need to be done.

I would also like to see something done with tax policy, but unfortunately there are limits. I'll take to the streets if we ever get close to implenting a horribly regressive national sales tax. I'd like to see tax policy with less monkey shines -- I don't want to get rid of incentives for investment and savings like tax breaks on capital equipment, charitable donations or mortgage interest. But if you're in a 35 percent tax bracket, I don't think there should be anyway you can claim so many deductions that you're paying less percentage in taxes than someone in the 25 percent bracket.

This is the absolute biggest reason why I don't believe we will ever see meaningful or signficant tax reform in this country. Does anyone know how many millions of people are employed in the tax preparation field, from the IRS all the way through corporate CPAs and H&R Block? If we went to a flat tax, eliminated all tax loop holes aside from simple, dedicated deductions to encourage savings and investment, there would be millions out of work or displaced. H&R Block wouldn't exist.

The lobbyists won't let it happen, and even if they did it would cause a bubble that make the tech bubble look like a night at the ballpark.

The thing I don't like about Tax Freedom Day is that doesn't really tell you what you think it tells you. My taxes from Bush to Clinton didn't change one iota. The biggest change is that the top tax bracket went from 39.6 to 35 percent. So the folks at the top of the chain got the big break. For them, Tax Freedom day changed, but not for me.

Personally, I think there ought to be a Budget Spending Day too, so we can see what the disconnect is between what we are spending and what we getting in taxes. I think Clinton's tax policy was the most responsible thing a president could do -- he raised taxes to try and maintain spending and whittle down the deficit. As you can probably tell, I'm not a propponent of supply-side economics. It made sense to a large degree in the 1980s when Reagan was cutting the top tax brackets from 70 to 33 percent, but when you're talking about yo-yoing from 33 to 39.6 percent, I don't think that amount makes any difference whatsoever in individual investment and spending decisions, but it makes a huge difference in deficit spending.

I agree with the last paragraph whole-heartedly. As much fine-tuning as we have with the economy, we still have not mastered how to apply the brakes and when to hit the gas. I think that lesson is particularly true when it comes to Fed policy. I think the Fed recently went overboard with rate hikes and probably went a little too fast too soon, especially in light of the energy crunch we're setting ourselves up for right now. The Fed wants to keep a lid on inflation, but at the same time while higher rates may slow inflation it will also slow investment.

Okay, so I do have to admit a mistake. In saying that taxes have gone down I was looking at only federal income taxes, the very thing I try to correct in others! From what I have found, the tax rate as a percentage of GDP has been around 18% for the past fifty years. When it gets too close to 20% there tend to be tax cuts and when it gets too close to 15% there tend to be tax increases.

The larger point of continued slower growth that isn't at all connected to tax rates remains, however.

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...&postcount=125

What do you mean? Things are pretty bad in Afghanistan by most accounts. You mean compared to Iraq? Because it is going well compared to Iraq.

How many times you going to post that? I've read it...

I'll keep posting as many times as you ask the question, "why do the rich pay X% of the taxes?" It's because the rich make X% of the money.

Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in11si.xls

Disagree completely.

Your not getting what I am trying to ask though. Is it the rich's fault that they make more money? Most of them are providing jobs, taking risks in delivering new products or services, and some are innovative in several fields that impact our daily lives. By reducing their taxes, they are investing it back into companies, stocks, ect., which will increase more jobs, ect. When was the last time you were paid by a poor person?

No really it is the truth. The Downing Street Memo isn't what most Bush administration critics think it is.

Dutch,
Those aren't US soldiers right? Cause I don't think the US has that many there now, unless they've raised levels post Iraq.

The Al Qaeda and Taliban groups are essentially omnipresent outside of the few major cities where the UN is present. They rule the countryside along with the opium poppy growing war lords. Afghanistan is far from a panacea.

I wish we had taken the time, and invested the troops on the ground there to really extend the democracy, especially the law and order aspects of a true democracy, to the people outside the capital.

You don't hear so much anymore about trickle down economics, because it wasn't much of a success when it was first talked about and implemented. If you are saying that lower taxes mean the rich have more money, then I would say you are right. If you are saying that more of the tax burden being on the poorer people helps them through trickle-down, then I think you are wrong.

yup, when all is said and done I wonder if Afghanistan will be looked at, in the grand scheme of things as a success story. IOW, will the removal of the Taliban in the end be smaller in stature than the failure to catch Bin Laden, failure to control the drug trade, etc. Dont take this as a "i was against the war" statement, cuz I wasnt...just being analytical.

hmmm, did a search and wasnt sure which thread to put this in considering titles sometimes can be vague purposely or inadvertantly so....here goes since it is appropriate for this one:

Ex-CIA official: WMD evidence ignored
'60 Minutes' report: White House disregarded good intelligence

Sunday, April 23, 2006; Posted: 8:46 p.m. EDT (00:46 GMT)


(CNN) -- A retired CIA official has accused the Bush administration of ignoring intelligence indicating that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no active nuclear program before the United States-led coalition invaded it, CBS News said Sunday.

Tyler Drumheller, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe, told "60 Minutes" that the administration "chose to ignore" good intelligence, the network said in a posting on its Web site.

Drumheller said that, before the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in 2003, the White House "ignored crucial information" from Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, that indicated Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Drumheller said that, when then-CIA Director George Tenet told President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other high-ranking officials that Sabri was providing information, his comments were met with excitement that proved short-lived.

"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller is quoted as saying. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "

Drumheller said the administration officials wanted no more information from Sabri because: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."

CBS said the White House declined to respond to the charge and that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said Sabri was just one source and therefore not reliable.

But Drumheller said it was not unusual for the administration to rely on single-source stories when those stories confirmed what the White House wanted to hear.

He cited a report the CIA received in late 2001 that alleged Iraq had bought 500 tons of uranium-containing compounds from Africa.

"They certainly took information that came from single sources on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all," he said.

Bush included the reference, which was attributed to the British and turned out to be false, in his 2002 State of the Union Address.

"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure," Drumheller told CBS' Ed Bradley. "This was a policy failure. I think, over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time."

The White House earlier this month reacted angrily to a report that Bush had cited trailers suspected as biological weapons labs as proof of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after intelligence officials knew that the trailers were not part of a WMD program. (Full story)

"I cannot count how many times the president has said the intelligence was wrong," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

He added that the administration has implemented reforms to make sure that "the executive branch and the Congress have the best possible intelligence as they move forward to deal with the threats that face this country and face this world."

Flasch that's just the opinion of one man, not the smoking gun that Bush haters would want you to think it is.

Well lets see. This is a CIA official saying that specific evidence was ignored. The thing I'm curious about is the time frame involved. Not to mention what the CIA considered Sabri's credibility was. More facts are needed, but this is a hell of a lot more of a smoking gun than the Downing Street clap-trap.

No I think the reason you don't hear about it anymore is that it has become a catch phrase that people who don't know thing one about economics to attack. They can mock it and say it doesn't work. Yet when you hear the Republicans of today speak about keeping the tax burden low to protect business, they are preaching the same policies described in "Trickle Down" economics. It has just been all repackaged for the public's consumption.

it just seems like there are a lot of "Individuals" from different arenas saying the same type of things. At what point, numbers wise, does a couple of people become a gang, then a horde, then an army, etc. etc.?

Ask Glen.

Normally if something works, it's popular. That's not 100% true, but it's a general trend. If it's popular, it doesn't need to be repackaged under a different name every few years.

Let's just take the Bush example: taxes cut for the upper incomes, and then slow job growth, an increase in poverty, low wage increases, and an increase in the wealth disparity.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

You may remember that two congressional investigations into pre-war intelligence gave the White House clean records, the Robb-Silbermann Commission and the Roberts Committee. Josh Marshall is reporting that he called the ex-CIA official and he says that he was interviewed as many as three times by each commission, told them everything that he told 60 Minutes, and none of it made it into any of the reports.

If true, it obviously destroys the credible of the reports, and makes me wonder what else was not included.

So is there enough evidence finally for everyone this side of Dutch to finally admit that Bush et al wanted to lead us to war at any cost? Worst president ever.

Several comments on very different issues, so I'll dolapost a bit to keep things separate.

I don't think the tax prep bubble burst would be that significant. Just think of the massive amount of investment money that was propping up unstable tech products in the late '90s. All you had to do was say "dot com" somewhere on your prospectus, and the venture capitalists were at your door. Most H&R Block workers are temporary.

You're right about the lobbying, though. It would be significant. You just have to be confident, as I am, that slashing a large number of government jobs, along with the associated budget savings, would spur the economy in more efficient ways. Good businesses know what to do when skilled labor suddenly floods the market.

I don't think we'll ever get that opportunity. The populists (I see populism as thinly veiled communism) are too successful with their class warfare rhetoric.

One simple point here. If a change of 7% among the very rich can move the entire Tax Freedom Day calculation two weeks, then the very rich are paying more than all of the taxes. Taxes went down for everyone, and it was very much welcome.

We need to cut the federal budget. We need to stop waging unnecessary wars. We need to admit that there's a difference between an entitlement culture and a safety net. We need to stop villifying businesses, because, aside from the government, they're the only ones who provide jobs in this country.

One thing to look at with the loan rate: the Fed believes that their actions only work months, if not years, in advance of a problem. It's very complex work. I don't understand it all, but I don't feel qualified to say whether creating short-term problems like a housing bubble bursting right before I want to sell mine are worth combatting long-term problems, like fighting inflation, which we all know was incredibly damaging in the '70s.

I think it's been said before, but if you support the welfare state, then you don't mind taxing the rich until the marginal rates are so high, it just doesn't bring in any revenue any more because incentive dies.

If you have a welfare state instead of a true safety net, then the under-educated or under-skilled have no incentive to work. They can't find a job that has any effect on their net compensation, so why not just sit around and whine all day?

We have to keep looking at welfare states elsewhere in the world (or at least moreso than ours). Are they successful? Do you see much new business coming from France or Germany these days? France's welfare state is so entrenched that about 2% of the entire country went out on daily protests of a law that would certainly have spurred businesses to provide jobs in a nation with 10% unemployment. But the jobs weren't good enough for them because France does not require healthy, able people to try and earn a living on their own.

I'll argue in favor of the Bush tax cuts and how Greenspan handled the Fed, because I believe they helped reduce what would have been an economic disaster in the tech bust. You can't blame Bush for the jobs losses caused by something that happened long before he was in office.

As for your comment above, no contest. Bush mangled things so badly that you have to wonder if he just plain wanted to invade Iraq, screw diplomacy.

There's plenty of analysis to indicate that more units on the ground, especially early on, would have resulted in a higher capture rate of Al-Qaeda targets. U.S. forces simply weren't able to project and sustain force as well as they would have liked.

As for going "relatively well"? Define "relatively well". The advantage the U.S. has with Afghanistan vs. Iraq is that an existing structure of power (i.e. warlords) was only happy to re-take power after the Taliban and had the means to do so. Still, there's plenty of fighting outside of the major cities, and ex-Taliban insurgents are using techniques used in Iraq against U.S. forces. These don't make the news as much because Iraq dominates U.S. coverage, but it's certainly happening.


All evidence points to an Al-Qaeda presence still existing on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, helped by the chaos there, and also helped by sympathetic local powers on the Pakistani side with which Musharraf still won't contend, despite our diplomatic leaning.

Anyway, OBL is apparently still in that area, so that's something at least. Plus, remember that Al-Qaeda doesn't particularly need Afghanistan for training purposes anymore, since they can use Iraq for that.

I think that's about right (he wanted to invade and, by God, he was going to do it).

As for the tax cuts issue, they may have been alright if our military budget didn't jump so high because of the Iraq War. Just staying in Afghanistan may have stopped the deficit from climbing so high.

Though frankly, I don't care that the rich were paying 40% in federal taxes. I don't think it was such a crisis that they had to get a tax break to 35%. A good tax policy to jumpstart the economy would be to take that money which would be lost by reducing taxes on the top percent and use that to reduce the middle and lower class taxes even further. Since middle class and lower class people have a higher marginal propensity to consume than the upper class, it would also stimulate more consumption. That being said, I may also take some of the almost 5% cut in the top marginal rate and give tax cuts to businesses.

http://www.cfc-a.centcom.mil/Informa...fghanistan.htm

Coalition forces in Afghanistan: More than 21,000
- United States: more than 17,900
- Allies: more than 3,100
Allied nations: 21

Provincial reconstruction teams: 13 Coalition, 9 NATO

(International Security Assistance Force) Combined Forces Command – Afghanistan

CFC-A is the strategic headquarters in Afghanistan and is commanded by Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry.

Our mission:

Combined Forces Command Afghanistan conducts full spectrum operations throughout the combined joint operations area to defeat Al Qaeda and asscociated movements, establish an enduring Afghan security structure and reshape its posture for the Long War in order to set the conditions for long-term stability in Afghanistan.

Combined Joint Task Force-76

Is a subordinate unit of CFC-A. It is the operational headquarters in Afghanistan and is commanded by Maj. Gen. Jason Kamiya of the Southern European Task Force at Bagram Airfield. CJTF-76 is broken down into six major task forces:

Combined Task Force Bayonet

Covers the south and southeast of Afghanistan and is responsible for provincial reconstruction teams in Kandahar, Lashkar Gah, Qalat and Tarin Kowt.

Combined Task Force Devil

Covers the central and eastern region of the country and is responsible for provincial reconstruction teams in Asadabad, Bamian, Gardez, Ghazni, Jalalabad, Khowst, Parwan, Mehtar Lam, and Sharona.

Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force

Covers special operations missions across the country.

Task Force Griffin

Responsible for aviation coverage of the entire country including close air support, reconnaissance and logistics.

Combined Task Force Sword

Oversees engineer operations, including coalition engineers from South Korea, Poland and Slovakia, at Bagram Airfield, Kandahar Airfield, the provincial reconstruction teams and forward operating bases throughout the country.

Each provincial reconstruction team is a civil-military project intended to help Afghans build and repair damaged infrastructure such as roads, wells and schools. The PRTs also help establish broad security by extending the reach of the Afghan government through the country.

The Office of Security Cooperation – Afghanistan (OSC-A)

Is another subordinate unit of CFC-A. OSC-A works with the government of Afghanistan and the international community to reconstruct the Afghan security and defense sectors.

OSC-A is reconstructing the Afghan National Army, and the Afghan defense sector by recruiting soldiers to training the recruiters; organizing the Ministry of Defense and mentoring its senior leaders and the General Staff; acquiring weapons, uniforms and equipment; as well as developing the policies and processes needed by a modern army to establish viable acquisition, personnel and other systems required to establish a working military infrastructure.

OSC-A's recent assumption of the U.S. Government's role in reforming the Afghan National Police provides a historic opportunity to help provide stable rule of law in Afghanistan. OSC-A works with Germany, the lead nation in Afghan Police reform, and other members of the international community to collectively deliver a proffessional polic force that will enhance the security of the Afghan people.

Under OSC-A’s operational control is Task Force Phoenix, which is responsible for training the Afghan National Army.

Current as of Jan. 21, 2006

Dutch (since your one of the military people here, and to other military people still reading this), what resources (websites, books, etc) are there that really go into detail about this sort of stuff? Like what exactly is a "Task Force", "Combined Task Force", "Special Ops Task Force", what kind of personel are they made up of, their command structure, equipment, etc. etc. (I'd love to learn more about modern military stuff)

Task Forces are just temporary units brought in to do a mission. I'm not an expert on all of this. Some of our folks who have deployed recently would be of more assistance.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq, the biggest source of news is the US Central Command. http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/default.aspx

Indeed.

You read the New York Times, so fuck you. :)

Seriously, where does the New York Times get their info if not from this source? This site provides a majority of the information the AP gets. Plus the other stuff the AP can't sell. Great info here.

Dutch,

I didn't think the US had 17,000 troops there, I thought we had been hovering around the 10,000 mark. In any case, I haven't seen any reports indicating that we had been able to squash the rebounded opium trade. I can't really think we are successful there when the Taliban was able to shut down the opium harvest better than we can. That plus some of the reports about the Taliban reclaiming territory. Even if those are overblown, the fact that they essentially have war lords governing sections of the country, tell me that there is lots of work left to be done.

I'll take this one. See, Dutch, there are these people called 'reporters'. You may remember them as the people you call traitors for reporting on the evil deeds of President. What they do is, they either go out into the field and find the info for themselves, or rely on sources inside the government to tell them what is going on. What they don't do (at least always) is rely on propaganda from the government and reprint everything the government says. Not doing so is not a sign of liberal bias, but rather part of their function as a check on the powr of government.

Now - these "reporters" as you call them...have they ever been shown to have any bias or, I don't know, fabricate a story in the past? I can imagine maybe some small-time reporters probably have, but it's good to know that such a thing would never occur at the NY Times.

...and these so called reporters, if they even exist, would never go on a News Network and serve one side of the political aisle over another OR god forbid, use that new technology called Radio to espouse lies, would they? I have my doubts if these so called journalists even exist as opposed to just being vacationers who pick bad locales to relax. Especiallyy Ben Wiedeman and Christiane Amanpour.

LOL, complaining about reporters when this Administration has spent money to place propaganda pieces in media outlets, quietly hired commentators to shill for them, and set up propaganda outlets masquerading as objective news sources in Iraq. You guys crack me up.

CENTCOM's website, as Dutch points out, is good. I also recommend globalsecurity.org. Someone may want to take issue with their articles, but their factual stuff is usually quite helpful, especially for questions like "What is an X", and suchlike.

Good ole Bush at it again.... "Want lower gas prices? Well then, we need to ease regulation!"

I hope the American public isnt so completely stupid that they fall for this shit.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060425/...ergy_plan_dc_1

more on the story...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060425/..._pr_wh/bush_15

As of now, environmental restrictions on gas refineries are LIFTED. what a fucking farse.

Well, at least the article wasn't all bad news...

true, but i think the halting of epa refinery regulations might more than offset that. Also, i think those tax breaks were supposed to go towards r&d? wasnt that how it was touted back then? but either way, they dont deserve a single red cent from the government, good move by Bush - even if this is the most obvious move. no industry deserves federal funds amidst record profits.

worked for Cable companies right?

Just wow. More people disapprove of Bush than had disapproved of Nixon at any time except right before he resigned. And this is without any congressional investigations.

Doesn't mean much since he will not resign nor should he.

Usual Biggle ignorant tripe. Little does he know that the standard for the presidential was much higher pre-Watergate, where being president was something noble and the ultimate occupation. If you think the Bush are bad, just wait till the next president, and the one after that, etc. It's a different time and multi-generational stats don't make good comparisons.

duckman, damn you for quoting that piece of turd.

Dutch has good kung fu.

Buc, this is the dumbest response I have ever had the mispleasure of reading from you. If I am not mistaken, it is your contention that Bush's record high disapproval ratings are not due to his incompetance as a leader, but rather as a general trend where each president will be judged to be worse and worse. This trend, according to you, has somehow missed Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. Furthermore, you contend that Bush's disapproval is because, pre-Nixon, standards were higher. How higher standards makes someone less likely to be critically judged is left unexplained. And you call a post consisting entirely of facts without commentary 'ignorant tripe'. This might be the ultimate in wankery. Good show Buc.

Seriously, if you want to participate with the adults, please add something that is above a first grade level. And if you are incapable, don't make yourself look worse by being juvenile in your name calling.

Yes Dutch, another reason why Bush's disapproval may be up: 0% growth rate over the past 6 years in the stock market.

Ugh.. I have to agree with Biggie here... sorry Bucc. But the 'wait until the next President' stuff was dumb.

Yeah, I know, I couldn't help it. But I also think that the partisan bullshit will not get any better. It seems that we've been in a cycle of the next administration/congress/whatever will try their damndest to wipe out any trace of the previous adminstration/etc., overcompensating if you will. We saw that with Carter after Nixon, Reagan after Carter, Clinton after Reagon/Bush and Bush after Clinton.

Hey, Bucc.

Go Wings. ;)

It doesn't make sense to blame this on generic partisanship. It wasn't like that at the start. I can't think of any President who was given more bipartisan support than George W. Bush. He had an approval rating near 90% in 2001, and got most of his major campaign programs passed on a bipartisan basis even before the attack. Partisanship has gotten particularly bad in recent years, but things happened to cause that, and Bush was hardly blameless in that process... He has governed with all the subtleness of a sledgehammer.