An excellent observation, Sir.

I might add two points:

First, the groups receiving the largest percentage of the tax cuts, need it the least. This is counter-intuitive.

Second, a question for supply-siders: exactly which businesses were created thanks to these tax cuts? Which jobs?

I have a feeling that they will be unable to answer the question, yet will not recognize the fact that this is a critical problem with their position.

Cycloptichorn

Thank You.

No question the wealthy do not need a tax cut. In fact both Gates and Buffet wrote Bush in 2001 saying he should not give the wealthy tax cuts because the country had much more urgent needs for that money. Greenspan and O'Neil advised Bush to tie tax cuts to available surpluses to pay for them. If you recall Bush claimed in 2001 that our economy was expected to produce a $5.7 Trillion dollar surplus over the ten years from 2001 to 2011. I wonder where it went.

The supply side (Voodoo economics per Bush 41) was shown to be a sham when Reagan claimed his tax cuts to the wealthy would stimulate the economic growth with business investment and balance the budget by 1985. He added $3 Trillion dollars to the National Debt in his 8 years in the White House. It took until 2000 to restore a balanced budget and the very next year Bush employed the same tax and spend policies as Reagan and he added $3 Trillion to the National debt in only 6 years.

Um, who cares? You could post that the tax cuts are going to "cost" the government eleventy bazillion dollars and I would cheer. The money doesn't belong to the government, so saying it "costs" them money is like saying that you not giving me a Christmas present "costs" me a present.

What you fail to understand is many of us want the biggest tourniquet we can find placed around as many vestigial limbs of the government until they rot off. I believe the only way we will ever fix government is by slowly starving it. Not that this will matter, because your criminal allies have retaken control of congress and will no doubt start stealing wholesale ASAP.

You're like a submissive for the government, Col, and it makes me ill. You like to be abused by them, I guess. Your party of outlaws with their freezers stuffed full of money will oblige you, don't worry.

First, the groups receiving the largest percentage of the tax cuts, need it the least. This is counter-intuitive.

Not at all. Please take note that the people that receive tax cuts are the ones paying taxes. Years ago the poor were eliminated from the tax roll so the poor pay no taxes. This shifted the tax burden to the middle and upper income brackets. If it is fairly distributed then the middle income people should pay 50% of all the taxes and the upper bracket should pay 50% as it stands right now the people you think are “rich” pay about 90% of the taxes leaving 10% on the middle class. Here is a wake up call for you, the Democrats call the rich anyone that makes more than 50k a year. The poor are the ones that make 30k a year or less. Don’t be fooled by political rhetoric. The IRS has released the FY 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don't pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.
Look at Senator Kennedy for example; his family has been rich since the depression. Does he or his family pay taxes on that money? No! It is well hidden off shore to ensure no one from his family has to pay any serious taxes. The family is worth over a 100 million dollars and none of it has been taxed. But he is first in line to say that the rich should play their fair share. Congresswoman Pelosi is a multi millionaire; she also pays little or no taxes, but wants to tax the rich. These people are not seeking to tax the rich they are trying to con you into voting for them as common people. There is only one Democrat that I know of that is not a millionaire. From what I can see these rich people are all for taxing the rich except for themselves. The tax cuts work because it puts more money into the economy which spurs job growth.

Second, a question for supply-siders: exactly which businesses were created thanks to these tax cuts? Which jobs?

Me as an example. I quit my job and started my own business. My employees make about 30k to start. Those are people without high school diplomas. I pay my good people extra if they are willing to go to college. I could pay the minimum wage but I can’t find anyone what will work for the minimum and the economy is such that it is hard to find people to work for me without a good salary. Installing cable in Florida pays around 10 bucks an hour to start and they are having trouble finding people to work for such a low wage. Without the tax cuts I would have to pay my people less. With the tax cuts I can expand my business and hire more employees. This is good because it makes me more money that I have to pay in taxes. I like paying taxes. I can afford to pay taxes. The only way for me to pay less in taxes is to hire more people that will be paying taxes. So it works. Proof of this is that we are paying down the deficit two or three years ahead of schedule.
President Carter tried to tax his way out of trouble in the 70’s it resulted in less money in the treasury higher inflation, 21%, and people having to work two or three jobs just to make ends meet. When President Reagan cut taxes everyone said the same things you are saying now and the result was 10 years of economic growth that was not beaten until this recent round of tax cuts. Tax cuts are good for everyone.

The simple issue is that we are spending 400 Billion MORE per year then we tax. Most of that money is spent on obligations that we as a country have made and those that say just cut spending and the problem is solved have not looked at just what the tax dollars are being spent on.

We have now amassed a Debt that saps over $400 Billion per year to pay the interest and that will continue to grow until we balance the budget. Even after we balance the budget we will still have that debt to repay. By the time Bush leaves office we will be approaching 10 Trillion.

The simple truth is that we should NEVER have cut the taxes for the wealthy because the justification for those tax cuts, The Surplus Bush said existed, was a LIE! There was no such surplus and thus the justification he used for the tax cuts were simply a fabrication. At the same time Bush and the GOP has increased spending more then the democrats ever managed to do and Republicans continue to blast the free spending liberals. What BS!

We MUST balance the Budget and then begin paying DOWN the debt. First by resending that tax cuts to the top 20% and then by cutting the pork that is meant to plicate the voters of a specific area like the $230 million dollar Bridge in Alaska to an island were only 50 people lived.

Col, I notice you can't refute what was posted.  Why do you continue to post the same rhetoric that we have shown is not the case?

http://www.hermancain.org/news/press-opinion-032906.asp

There's nothing "Simple" about it unless you decide to just ignore all other alternatives.

We could just cut spending down by the necessary amount. I'm paying enough, Gene. If you feel strongly about it, then cut the government a check.

Well, you must realize that everything looks great for the economy - when you don't pay the bills.

We can't cut spending by enough to get ourselves out of debt. The magic of compound interest guarantees that. We must cut spending AND raise taxes from the levels they are currently at.

I have a difficult time with the fact that so many conservatives wish to run the country in a fashion which they would NEVER run their personal lives - completely in debt, borrowing money constantly to stay afloat, not doing anything to fix the problem besides... borrowing more money and hoping for the best.

We can't cut spending by enough to get ourselves out of debt. The magic of compound interest guarantees that. We must cut spending AND raise taxes from the levels they are currently at.

Hardly. You cut spending and then keep it frozen for a year or two and our economic growth will take care of the rest.

I have a difficult time with the fact that so many conservatives wish to run the country in a fashion which they would NEVER run their personal lives - completely in debt, borrowing money constantly to stay afloat, not doing anything to fix the problem besides... borrowing more money and hoping for the best.

We wish the country to live within its means. Most of the spending is on things that conservatives object to.  The budget, across the board, has vastly increased in the past few years.

If there has been a good faith effort to cut and then control spending, then the government can come begging for more money from us.

Having paid over a million dollars last year to the federal government in taxes, I feel I am in a position to object to paying more.

Proof of this is that we are paying down the deficit two or three years ahead of schedule.

Bush started his term with the greatest surplus in the history of any nation. He turned that into the greatest deficit any nation has ever seen and continued to break that record every year. Now he's reducing the deficit back to what would have been a record deficit when he started his term, and conservatives are cheering. If the economy is so great, why isn't the budget just as good as it was when Bush found it? Why can't we balance the budget?

The tax cuts work because it puts more money into the economy which spurs job growth.

I understand where you're coming from on this one. I respect this perspective, but I disagree with it. There is a sharp difference between money and capital. Money is easily mobile. Capital is not. If you put more money into the economy, you get inflation. If you spend your money wisely (which, I agree, is a big "if," but one we should work towards rather than rejecting as impossible), then you get more capital, which is what makes for a good economy.
While we're on the subject, the only reason unemployment is down from when Bush started his term is because he changed the way the number of unemployed was counted, so that those who are unemployed for a long time are magically considered employed. I don't support a President who tries to dupe the American people (and often succeeds).

We must cut spending AND raise taxes from the levels they are currently at.

I couldn't agree more. We shouldn't be happy about the fact that we're "only" accumulating ~$400 billion worth of debt every year. 13% of our budget goes to pay the interest on our debt. That means that if we were to pay off the national debt, we could cut taxes by $365 billion without having to cut the budget or raise the deficit. That's just the money we save by not paying interest on our loans. But that requires foresight; we have to have the discipline to eliminate our debt, and only then can we enjoy the benefits of a budget plentiful enough for relatively low taxes and generous spending.
The flip side, of course, is that the more we borrow, the more we'll have to raise taxes and/or cut spending to make up for it.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Dragional

Please look at the Budget. There is no $400 or $500 Billion to cut unless we say for example we will stop paying interest on the debt. That will just about balance the budget.

I do not have to refute the dribble that is posted. The simple fact is we MUST BALANCE THE BUDGET and that will take more tax revenue and less spending. Then we MUST REPAY THE DEBT! Just like ANY business that does not go out of business!

I have previously taken the time to provide ample evidence on how the budget will be balanced. I am not going to squander more time on it when you can refer to your previous diatribes.

Everytime I prove the case, you ignore it or change the subject.

Start eliminating welfare programs and forced "social" programs and freeze the budget for a few years then we can talk.

When one side is perfectly okay with the idea of the federal government going "bankrupt" you don't have a lot of leverage.

Corrupt politicians understand that once they committ the money, shills like Col Gene will insist that the expenditure is "necessary". That's a bunch of hooey, frankly. If you follow Col Gene's ideals, then you can't ever cut spending.

'Start eliminating welfare programs and forced "social" programs and freeze the budget for a few years then we can talk.'

This is a sophmoric answer. Welfare and other 'social' programs are designed to combat specific needs. While we can have reform of these programs to make them efficient and affordable to the US taxpayer, you can't just eliminate them and pretend that there won't be massive effects upon our economy. For example, those who are on welfare which is suddenly removed don't just quietly die; a man will committ crime after crime before he starves to death. Social Security? One of the reasons that home ownership rates are so high in America is that Americans are for the most part relieved from the burden of paying for their parents' lives (or supporting them in their house) by SS. You can't just eliminate these programs and imagine that there will not be consequences, including financial ones, for society.

The 'drown the gov't in a bathtub' idea isn't a governing philosophy, it is a criticism, nothing more.

Drag, you say to 'freeze the budget' and we will be able to begin paying down our debt, but this is impossible. Right now the deficits only look as good as they do for two reasons:

1, they aren't as bad as they were a few years ago, and
2, we 'borrow' a ton of money from the SS trust fund in order to keep our deficits lower then they really are.

You say you are okay with the gov't going bankrupt, but I highly doubt you've thought about the consequences of that happening - in terms of foreign investment alone, it would be disastrous.

Bakerstreet:

'Um, who cares? You could post that the tax cuts are going to "cost" the government eleventy bazillion dollars and I would cheer. The money doesn't belong to the government, so saying it "costs" them money is like saying that you not giving me a Christmas present "costs" me a present.'

Um, you do realize that the cost gets passed along to you, in the end?

When we say it 'costs' the government money, and you cheer, what you are really cheering is it costing YOU more money in the end. Because instead of paying for whatever we decide to pay for now, we pay for it later, with interest added on. That's what a tax cut IS.

Until we have balanced budgets, surpluses, and our debts are being paid down actively, no section of our society deserves a tax cut.