We are adding to our deficit to give those that DO NOT NEED the added money a tax cut and adding to what we must all pay in interest

Once again you can't grasp the fact that you don't understand what the wealthy do with their money.  Who are you to tell someone they don't need the money?  Did you not see it explained to you how that money that you think they don't need is investged into businesses and jobs? 

Are you jealous of wealthy people?  Is there were your hatred comes from? 

Island Dog

The Comptroller General of the United States had documented that the NEW revenue from the new investment resulting from the tax cuts is only generating 1/2 the lost tax revenue from the tax cuts. That is like saying you make something for $2.00 and then sell if for $1.00. That MAKES NO SENSE! Why is that so hard for you to understand!

This is the old Supply Side Economics that Reagan used and which started the spiral of annual budget deficits. Bush did the exact same thing as Reagan with the very same result! Remember Bush 41 calling it Voodoo Economics. That is just what is has been proven to be!

Drag, if you are still reading:

'People who produce wealth are better at it than people who don't. That wealth helps everyone.'

I don't have a problem with entrepeneurs, and I understand that jobs are helpful to folks in specific and the economy in general; but I believe you are making a serious error in extrapolating your behavior to the 'wealthy' as a whole.

'Like many middle-class people, you really don't have any idea how "rich people" spend money. We invest it.'

It is always a wise move to double-question your assumptions of other people; my family is what you call 'old money,' and I'm well aware of the concept of investment, thanks.

The things you did list can not be cut either because they are ESSENTIAL (National defense, Homeland security, FBI, CIA, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Transportation, Education) or because they are promises (like interest on the Debt, pensions, VA Benefits). These two types of spending are MOST of the spending.

No. They may be essential to your agenda but they're not essential. You could eliminate social programs to help against poverty (foodstamps and such) and Medicaid and balance the budget.

This right here explains it all col. You obviously have not read anything that was posted to you. How do you talk about reality when people here have just answered your questions, but you continue to ignore them like they don't exist. You keep focusing on your obsession with Bush, and ignoring whats been posted. Amazing.

This is why I no longer bother to go out and meticulously document my evidence to support my arguments when talking to Gene. He just ignores what is posted.

I'll simply repost what I said above since he ignored it:

Like many middle-class people, you really don't have any idea how "rich people" spend money.  We invest it.  You are correct that a tax hike wouldn't affect my quality of life one iota. But it would affect other people's quality of life.  Perhaps you would like to choose wich people I'd lay off due to a tax hike.  That's the real cost of tax increases. 

The Bush tax-cuts allowed me to keep enough of what I produced in order to hire two more web developers. One of the things they created was JoeUser.com.  Without the Bush tax cut, there'd be no JoeUser.com.  That wasn't the only results of those tax cuts. As we've grown, I've hired more people who have created mroe things, things that generate more money which in turn produces more tax revenue for the government.

Raise taxes and my costs go up proportionately. I then cut costs in the form of jobs. But not just me, but thousands of other businesses around the country do the same thing.

Rich people are rich because they use their money to create even more wealth. The government acts as a brake on this economic engine. It is no where near as effective at producing jobs and growth as people like I am.

Tax hikes aren't about making people like me not be able to afford diamond studded keyboards or whatever. You'll find that the average person like me lives not that much differently than other people. The difference is how we use the money we earned -- to do more of what we're doing.

It is better to invest in things that work than to invest in things that don't work or don't work as well.  People who produce wealth are better at it than people who don't.  That wealth helps everyone.  Last year I created around 20 new jobs just in my own company and probably nearly that many outside the company due to things we did. 

'People who produce wealth are better at it than people who don't. That wealth helps everyone.' I don't have a problem with entrepeneurs, and I understand that jobs are helpful to folks in specific and the economy in general; but I believe you are making a serious error in extrapolating your behavior to the 'wealthy' as a whole. 'Like many middle-class people, you really don't have any idea how "rich people" spend money. We invest it.' It is always a wise move to double-question your assumptions of other people; my family is what you call 'old money,' and I'm well aware of the concept of investment, thanks.

Perhaps that is why you have such a negative attitude about wealth then. 

Gene is talking about raising the INCOME tax rate. Not a tax on assets.

There ahve been surveys (and I've posted them on Gene's articles in the past but he just ignores them) that demonstrate that the top 1%tile are overwhelmingly "new" money. 

Hence, the people making the money are obviously better at making money than people who don't make money. And that wealth they create helps everyone -- even Gene.

It is no coincidence that the huge leap we've seen in daily standard of living in the past 20 years coincides with the massive decrease in the upper level taxes.  The 70s had high taxes and things were pretty stagnant.

Things really got hopping in the 90s and have continued to take off today. Simply put, we live far FAR better today than people did 30 years ago and one of the big reasons I think is because people had the incentive (and capital) to create cool stuff. 

As I type on my Dell computer (Dell, an entrepreneur) on my Windows (Microsoft, another entrepreneur) OS onto my Firefox browser (modern browser created by Marc Andresen, another entrepreneur) onto this website (from another entrepreneur) I think you can see the trend.

 

Cyclopticchon

I do understand investment but the growth from that added investment by the wealthy has not fully replaced the revenue that was lost from the tax cuts. No successful person, especially the wealthy, would run their companies like Bush is running the financial affairs of this country. You can not continually spend more then you have without getting into financial trouble. Both Rich and Middle-income taxpayers are paying the growing interest caused by the expanding debt. 40 % of the interest not paid to Social Security and Medicare is paid to foreign investors which mean that money leaves the U.S. and does not remain to help consumption.

We need to balance the budget and pay down the almost $9 Trillion in debt to reduce the interest we must pay each year. It is better for the economy and the majority of working Americans to get the added revenue from the top 20% then the middle income families. The tax cuts paid to the wealthy was to return a Surplus Bush claimed existed. Like WMD there was NO surplus and thus nothing to give back.

Dragional

To say thinks like Defense, CIA, FBI and alike are not essential is ridiculous. You would not have the ability to sit in front of your computer and type out the dribble you do if it were not for those expenditures! In your case I guess that would not be such a loss!

"To say thinks like Defense, CIA, FBI and alike are not essential is ridiculous. "

To say that the billions we spend in the name of Defense, intelligence, etc., always GOES to these things is ignoring reality. Tens, even hundreds of billions don't.

Bakerstreet

You are NUTS. To claim almost 1/2 of what we spend on defense is unneeded is pure BS. There is some waste like Iraq. Whose fault is that?

wow, Gene...insulting the guy that holds the keys to your blog is pretty gutsy....not that Draginol will do anything to you about it (well...that may not be all that true....)

I think what Bakerstreet is saying, Gene....

Is that we send the money via taxes to the government to spend on defense, but it doesn't make it to defense. It instead ends up in pet projects of the senators and representatives....at least, that is what it seems he is saying....

You would not have the ability to sit in front of your computer and type out the dribble you do if it were not for those expenditures!

OK, I finally have to speak up...it's DRIVEL, NOT "DRIBBLE"! God, this is annoying.

ColGene, your credibility would be greater if you'd take more time to correct the REPEATED grammar and syntax errors in your posts...errors that can't be dismissed as mere typos (examples: apostrophes where they do not belong; words improperly inserted where their meaning is different from what is intended). I cannot take a writer seriously if they can't bother to keep these things to a minimum, at least. The occasional typo is one thing, never bothering to check your work is another.

MythicalMino

I know there is waste in the government. Hell look at the No Bid contracts to companies in Iraq that steal our money. Bush has done nothing about that. The amount that is wasted will not balance the budget and even come close. The vast majority of our defense dollars go to pay and feed our troops and pay for supplies and equipment. To balance the budget and begin repaying the National Debt will take a lot more then can be saved by cutting the budget. I would like to see more waste and pet projects cut but that alone will not solve the problem. WE will require BOTH added tax revenue as well as spending cuts. Bush and the GOP have done the opposite on both spending and added tax revenue!

Gidion

Thanks for the correction. However, the truth of what I am saying in not altered by some grammar issues.

do you have them take out extra (taxes) from your paychecks?