Yes by past actions. There is a wealth of data that shows that middle income workers spend all the money they earn and if the tax cuts they currently have end they will spend less which does not help the economy or the people themselves. That is why the tax cuts to middle income families should be made permanent.

What data?  You seem to propel the myth that the middle class are so poor they spend every single penny they have, which is absolutely not true. 

If we add back $200 Billion that goes to the wealthy in the current tax cuts and DO NOT add new spending programs, we will be $200 Billion closer to a balanced budget.

And we can also cut useless federal programs and other forms of government waste to get closer to a balanced budget.  You are the only one who is obsessed with penalizing business owners and successful Americans.  Why do you keep ignoring all that we have posted to you?

The savings rate. The average Credit card debt. The increased level of mortgage balances compared with the equity. Everything shows that most middle income families are spending everything they make and then some. The lack of savings proves that fact. The added credit card debt, increase in home equity and mortgage refinancing to get money from their Real Estate values proves that as well. The lack of After Inflation weekly wage growth.

The economic principal is called the "Marginal Propensity to Consume"

We can cut the budget but the amount needed to balance the budget FAR exceeds what can be cut from the budget. Most of the Budget is either promise (Interest, pensions) or things that simply can not and will not be cut (Defense, Medicaid, Education). Anyone that says we can cut over $500 Billion ( See Smoke and Mirrors) just to balance the budget has not looked at what the budget is being spent on. After we balance the budget we then need to generate a REAL Annual Surplus that is applied to the $ 9 Trillion in Debt.

Everything shows that most middle income families are spending everything they make and then some.

No, it doesn't show that.  And if you seriously believe everyone in the middle class are spending every single penny they have, then it is hopeless with you. 

If you want to increase taxes only on one class of people, then you will have to come up wtih a better reason than "they can afforid it".  That excuse has been proven wrong, and you seem to ignore that. 

I have. First they can not afford it like the wealthy. The lack of After Inflation Average Weekly wage growth and the increased credit card debt PROVE that. Second, tax increases to middle income taxpayers will impact spending and tax increases on the wealthy will have little or no IMPACT ON THEIR SPENDING. These are facts that you may not want to acknowledge but they are facts never the less.

I do not know what business school you attended but I graduated from two first class business schools.

They are not facts.  A minimal tax increase will not dramatically affect the lifestyle of the middle class.  If balancing the budget is so obsessively important to you, then everybody needs to step up and help pay for it. 

You keep IGNORING what was posted to you.  Do you understand what businesses and wealthy do with their tax cuts?  It was explained to you, but you refuse to listen.

Will you be contributing extra to your taxes this year col? 

I do not know what business school you attended but I graduated from two first class business schools.

Anybody can graduate form a school col, it doesn't make you special or better than anybody else

  

Island Dog

No not anyone can graduate from college and Grad School. In addition I have successfully run many for profit and not for profit organizations. I have both a formal business education and the experience in business that spans 35 years and 6 major organizations.

There may be some middle income families in the top third of the middle class that would not be severely impacted by a tax increase but NONE of the wealthy would be adversely impacted by going back to the tax structure that existed in the 1990's. That is what needs to happen and I hope the Democrats do just that! There was no justification for the big tax cuts to the wealthy because there was NO SIURPLUS to give them back which was the Bush justification for the big tax cuts the majority of which is going to the top 20%. In fact by 2010 when all the tax cuts to the wealthy are in place, over 50% of the tax cuts will go to the top 1%. That is ridiculous!

No not anyone can graduate from college and Grad School. In addition I have successfully run many for profit and not for profit organizations. I have both a formal business education and the experience in business that spans 35 years and 6 major organizations.

And what do you want for that?  Doesn't mean you are right, on the contrary, you have been proved wrong here more times than I can remember.

There may be some middle income families in the top third of the middle class that would not be severely impacted by a tax increase but NONE of the wealthy would be adversely impacted by going back to the tax structure that existed in the 1990's.

BS.  Business owners would be impacted, the people who create jobs would be impacted.  How hard is it to understand that?

That is what needs to happen and I hope the Democrats do just that! There was no justification for the big tax cuts to the wealthy because there was NO SIURPLUS to give them back which was the Bush justification for the big tax cuts the majority of which is going to the top 20%. In fact by 2010 when all the tax cuts to the wealthy are in place, over 50% of the tax cuts will go to the top 1%. That is ridiculous!

Nice to see you are still cheerleading for the democrats.  The wealthy in this country hold most of the tax burden, and you advocate more.  You keep saying the same things over and over even though your opinions have been refuted.  You are just wrong.

Island Dog


The impact is not if you have a small business or work for a larger company. It is your income. The life style of People in the middle income brackets would be adversely impacted by higher taxes. The life style of the wealthy would not be changed by returning to the pre Bush tax rates.

You do not address the central issue - The Tax Cuts were because we had this SURPLUS that needed to be returned to the taxpayers. There was NO SURPLUS and thus no reason for the tax cuts! How can you return something you DO NOT HAVE?

The impact is not if you have a small business or work for a larger company. It is your income. The life style of People in the middle income brackets would be adversely impacted by higher taxes. The life style of the wealthy would not be changed by returning to the pre Bush tax rates.

Then I now believe you don't read anything posted to you. 

You do not address the central issue - The Tax Cuts were because we had this SURPLUS that needed to be returned to the taxpayers. There was NO SURPLUS and thus no reason for the tax cuts! How can you return something you DO NOT HAVE?

We have addressed the reasons for the tax cuts, you just IGNORE IT.  Why don't you go and address the issues that have been posted to you that you keep ignoring?

You do not address the central issue - The Tax Cuts were because we had this SURPLUS that needed to be returned to the taxpayers. There was NO SURPLUS and thus no reason for the tax cuts! How can you return something you DO NOT HAVE?

I can't hold my tongue any more.

The tax cuts were to get us out of a recession caused by Mr. Bush 41 and Mr. Clinton raising taxes to the point that the economy was sinking. The excuse of taking it from a nonexistent surplus only made it easier for the stupid to agree too. Everyone that understands money and how it works within the economy knows this but you don’t seem to get it even though you worked for six major organizations. I like how you say the surplus was nonexistent but the same projections for the surplus are the ones used to project the deficit you cling to. So either they are both nonexistent or they both exist. To be honest they are both fake. They are the guesses from educated men. The great thing about being an economist, my son tells me, is you only have to be right once to make your mark. Most are wrong because they guess, educated guesses, but still guessing. The facts come in and then you will know who is right and who is wrong. The ones that are right will be listened to again and the ones that are wrong will still be listened to because they might be right some day. My son told me this when he was getting his doctorate in economics.

There may be some middle income families in the top third of the middle class that would not be severely impacted by a tax increase but NONE of the wealthy would be adversely impacted by going back to the tax structure that existed in the 1990's. That is what needs to happen and I hope the Democrats do just that! There was no justification for the big tax cuts to the wealthy because there was NO SIURPLUS to give them back which was the Bush justification for the big tax cuts the majority of which is going to the top 20%. In fact by 2010 when all the tax cuts to the wealthy are in place, over 50% of the tax cuts will go to the top 1%. That is ridiculous!

I stole this from Herman Cane' article called stop lying about taxes. please prove him wrong.

When President Ronald Reagan came to office in 1981, the economy was mired in high interest rates, high unemployment and stagflation produced by policies of the 1970s. Reagan cut the highest individual tax rate in 1981 from 70 to 50 percent, and cut the lowest rate from 14 to 11 percent. In 1986 he further cut the top rate from 50 to 28 percent.


Reagan's tax rate cuts helped produce the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. Total tax revenues grew by over 99 percent during the 1980s, and the economy grew by an average of 4 percent each year. As we saw in the 1960s, the wealthiest Americans paid the most taxes following Reagan's rate cuts. The top 10 percent of income earners went from paying 48 percent of all taxes in 1981, to over 57 percent by 1988.


The other lie liberals perpetually tell is that low tax rates cause budget deficits. History proves just the opposite - that cuts in income, capital gains and dividends tax rates increase the amount of federal revenues available for Congress to spend. The only thing that can cause a budget deficit is when Congress spends in excess of available revenues, and the president at the time signs off on that spending. Members of Congress who blame tax cuts for causing deficits might as well argue that gun manufacturers cause homicides, fast food restaurants cause obesity and cigarette makers cause lung cancer. Surely no one would agree with that flawed logic.

Island Dog

It is you that do address the fact that the added revenue created by investment from the tax cuts is not even replacing the lost revenue from the tax cuts. For every 2 dollars we loose in tax revenue from the tax cuts only 1 dollar is being generated in new taxes from increased economic activity. The Comptroller General has documented that fact. The old Supply Side economic theory did not produce the added revenue in the 1980's when Reagan tried it is not working for Bush today! It is costing us money to continue the tax cuts. We MUST increase tax revenue and cut spending to balance the Federal Budget!

Paladin 77

"Every time a new job opens up it means a "rich" person is spending money."

Where do you up with this BS? The most fundamental driver is DEMAND created by added spending. When added spending creates the need for more production new jobs are created unless higher productivity enables the higher production to meet the higher demand. 70% of the economy is driven by demand. You are using the old supply side theory that failed in the 1980's and has failed today. You are supporting the Voodoo economics of Reagan. Bush 41 was correct.

Can you read, Gene? I'm beginning to wonder.

Reagan cuts tax rates drastically. The proportion of tax revenues collected from the wealthy goes up by nearly 10%. Isn't that what you want? The wealthy to pay their "fair" (read, bigger) share?

You can't have a deficit without choosing to spend more than you collect. Too little in taxes has never been the problem - too much spending by Congressmen and Senators drunk on OPM has always been the problem. Much of that spending now does nothing but provide employment for thousands of people whose job consists of moving paper from the inbox to the outbox without benefit of critical thought. Any real "work" they do now involves justifying their existence and keeping the gravy train rolling.

70% of the tax cuts go to the wealthy. When all the cuts are in place even a greater % will go to the wealthy. The rational for the tax cuts was to return a SURPLUS that did not exist. Bush told us we were overtaxing people, especially the top income group and that was creating this $5.7 Trillion Surplus. There was not one cent of a Surplus and we should do as Sec. O'Neil and Alan Greenspan recommended which was to tie the tax cuts to available surplus to pay for them. No Surplus, No tax Cuts.

Where do you up with this BS? The most fundamental driver is DEMAND created by added spending. When added spending creates the need for more production new jobs are created unless higher productivity enables the higher production to meet the higher demand. 70% of the economy is driven by demand. You are using the old supply side theory that failed in the 1980's and has failed today. You are supporting the Voodoo economics of Reagan. Bush 41 was correct.

But the head of the company or the business owner has to lay out the money to hire the person instead of keeping it in his pocket.Yes, I am supporting Voodoo economics. Just cause you say it failed does not mean it is true.

When President Ronald Reagan came to office in 1981, the economy was mired in high interest rates, high unemployment and stagflation produced by policies of the 1970s. Reagan cut the highest individual tax rate in 1981 from 70 to 50 percent, and cut the lowest rate from 14 to 11 percent. In 1986 he further cut the top rate from 50 to 28 percent.
Reagan's tax rate cuts helped produce the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. Total tax revenues grew by over 99 percent during the 1980s, and the economy grew by an average of 4 percent each year. As we saw in the 1960s, the wealthiest Americans paid the most taxes following Reagan's rate cuts. The top 10 percent of income earners went from paying 48 percent of all taxes in 1981, to over 57 percent by 1988.

This is what you call a failure then we need more of them.