Forum Home | Login

Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy

COL Gene

Join Date 09/2004

Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy

I have placed my Blogs on JoeUser into a file and in that process looked at many of the comments and complaints about the increased spending, welfare, pork and taxes people posted in response to my Blogs. When I took a look at just what parts of the Federal Budget have increased since 2001, the word that is front and center about all the budget and tax complaints is HYPOCRISY!

The largest increase in our spending since 2001 is not on pork or welfare. It is not on the administrative costs or waist. Below are the things that have increased or that are about to show the largest increase:

Interest on the debt. UP $150 Billion; by 2009 will be up $200 Billion per year.

The Iraq War. Up about $140 Billion and this will end when we end the war.

VA Administration. That budget is up 82% and will spend $700 Billion more.

Military Equipment. Over the next 10 years we will need to spend $200 Billion More.

Our problem is not the increased amount we spend on Medicaid or pork projects. It is not what we spend on education. It is not even all the waist in the various government projects. Every one of the above is the DIRECT result of George W. Bush and the GOP controlled Congress since 2001. All this increased spending is because of the financial and tax policies we have adopted and to fight a war that has not made America any safer from an attack by the radical terrorists who hate us. For all those who hate to pay taxes, you will be happy to know you will be paying far more in taxes for decades to come because of GWB. The legacy of President Bush will be the cost of his policies and will continue long into the future. We are still paying the interest on the added debt Reagan created in the 1980’s.

I would like to propose a tax credit for all those Americans who did not vote for George W. Bush. Let’s say a 10% credit if you did not vote for him in 2000 and a 50% credit if you did not vote for him in 2004. Fair is fair. Why should those of us who did not support Bush and his policies be responsible to pay for them? To pay for the proposed tax credits we should add a surtax on all that voted for Bush since they are responsible for the higher taxes because of electing him president!

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

And a Merry Christmas to you, Gene, as well.

WWW Link

A little blurb from the above link:

* An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:
o The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
o The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
* Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory -- Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon "legal plunder." A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay more taxes, and conversely, those with little or no income should pay no tax. However, a quick look at Graph 1A below shows that the U.S. tax system has become far beyond progressive. Fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes.
* The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.
* Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977.
* The argument most oft used against tax breaks are that they benefit only the wealthy. It is clear from even a cursory look at the numbers below that the 'wealthy' will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately huge percentage of the income taxes! To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don't (i.e. legal plunder.)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply | | DeleteReply By: DaiwaPosted: Monday, December 24, 2007And a Merry Christmas to you, Gene, as well.[link="http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/"]WWW Link">LinkA little blurb from the above link:* An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:o The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.o The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.* Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory -- Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon "legal plunder." A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay more taxes, and conversely, those with little or no income should pay no tax. However, a quick look at Graph 1A below shows that the U.S. tax system has become far beyond progressive. Fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes.* The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.* Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977.* The argument most oft used against tax breaks are that they benefit only the wealthy. It is clear from even a cursory look at the numbers below that the 'wealthy' will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately huge percentage of the income taxes! To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don't (i.e. legal plunder.)

Merry Christmas to all.

Thanks for the date. However, when I see people with the income of Cheney and Bush paying 23% in Federal Income tax I know they are not over taxed. The wealthy did just fine during the 1990's BEFORE the Bush tax cuts and there is every reason to return to those rates given the fact there was NO SURPLUS with which to cut taxes and we need the money to help balance the budget!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

You can't base policy on your opinion of two individuals' tax returns - they won't be the only two affected.

And Happy New Year.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

They are not paying as much as they did in the 1990's. I also do not believe they pay 80% of the taxes. The rich have too many special loop holes to get out of paying taxes. Look at Cheney-- 23% on an income of $1.7Million! POOR BABY! Yes he is OVER taxed- WHAT BS!

Who is paying the taxes isn't open to dispute. It's a documented fact.

The top 5% pay over half the taxes. This is a fact.

Why don't you pay in more?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Why don't you pay in more?

Because I did not receive the Big Bush Tax Cuts. We need to increase the taxes for those that got the bulk of the tax cuts that were not justified because the Bush Surplus was a LIE!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2415

Because I did not receive the Big Bush Tax Cuts. We need to increase the taxes for those that got the bulk of the tax cuts that were not justified because the Bush Surplus was a LIE!

What does that have to do with anything? You want the government to pay for programs for those people you personally feel need it. So why don't you pay in extra?

Why should I pay extra to support your policies?

I could care less whether there's deficit spending as long as a quarter of the budget is being wasted giving money from one person to another without anything in return.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Merry Christmas to you and your family, Gene!

Successfully updated karma reason!

I could care less whether there's deficit spending as long as a quarter of the budget is being wasted giving money from one person to another without anything in return.

There is where you are DEAD WRONG. The money that helps people is spent by them and returns to the economy more effectively then to let the rich have more and invest it. Demand is the more powerful economic stimulus and that is just what happens when tax dollars go to the low and middle income families. They spend it and that creates DEMAND which creates JOBS and profits to companies!

Thus there is SOUND economic reason as well as the humanitarian reasons to have the government provide some help to those who need it. We pay for that help with the taxes and that is why a return to the tax rates of the 1990’s for the wealthy is what is needed!

Merry Christmas to all my supporters on Joe User!!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Put down the political pen for a day, Col, and have a cup of nog!

Merry Christmas to everyone on JoeUser, supporters or not!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2415

There is where you are DEAD WRONG. The money that helps people is spent by them and returns to the economy more effectively then to let the rich have more and invest it.

That's utter nonsense.

If the poor were more effective with money, then by definition, they wouldn't be poor.

People who are the most effective with money are the ones who are rich. That's how they got to be rich in the first place.

No wonder you're poor with that kind of thinking.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply By: FrogboyPosted: Tuesday, December 25, 2007

There is where you are DEAD WRONG. The money that helps people is spent by them and returns to the economy more effectively then to let the rich have more and invest it.

That's utter nonsense.If the poor were more effective with money, then by definition, they wouldn't be poor.People who are the most effective with money are the ones who are rich. That's how they got to be rich in the first place.No wonder you're poor with that kind of thinking.

That is simply not correct!

Exploding Two Conservative Myths

By COL Gene
Posted Wednesday, December 26, 2007 on Bush Truth
Discussion: Politics

When I listened to Ron Paul being interviewed on Meet the Press and while watching the Republican debates, two of the most fundamental conservative axioms we hear from Republicans were shown to be fabrications.

First is an individual make better spending choices then government.

Second is that government spending is ineffective and wasteful.

Spending Choices

Does anyone believe that if all or most spending choices were made by individuals that they would say I need to spend money to help replace that tank the 1st Armored Division needs? I will repair the section of I95 between, mile marker X and Y in George. Baby Carol Smith needs formula today and I will buy it for her. We need another border guard to stop illegals and possibly terrorists from crossing into the U.S.

The truth is none of those and many other choices that are essential for our country to survive and prosper would be made by individuals. The spending choices must be made by BOTH individuals to provide for individual needs but the needs of our society and to insure our security and to facilitate commerce, banking, law enforcement and many other items must be made collectively by government.

That is not to say that some spending choices by government, like to build the bridge in Alaska where about 50 people lived, are the best choices. However if the choice were to repair a bridge that enabled tens of thousands to get to work each day that spending choice would be sound and could be essential.

Government spending is Wasteful

In most cases when the government spends tax dollars that money returns to the economy and helps individuals and business. If the Federal Government buys that tank the 1st Armored Division needs, Americans are put to work and the companies that make the tank earn a profit. That helps the people who own the stock of the companies who make and assemble that tank. It also provides something we NEED to protect our freedom. If the Federal government adds that Border Guard, that person spends the salary they are paid from taxes and that helps the economy. An expenditure the government makes that does not help our people is the interest on the debt that is paid to foreign investors. That tax money does not return to our economy.

If an individual takes their tax cut and invests it in a business that employs people outside the U.S. that investment takes money from our economy. In that case the spending choice by an individual harms the economy. Thus these two GOP axioms above are not true and it is time the American Voters understand the true nature of Federal spending. We do need to pay for our spending and STOP deficit spending! The GOP is supporting political ideas that are NOT in agreement with the majority of Americans. As a Republican I can not understand HOW the GOP got so far from the mainstream of the American People. Most Republicans can not complete a sentence without using the word “Conservative”. The majority of Americans are NOT Conservatives.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If the poor were more effective with money, then by definition, they wouldn't be poor.

You are correct that some people make choices that are not the best for their families. That does not mean they could be wealthy with different choices but it does mean they could make better decisions for the welfare of their families.

The issue here is how choices impact the economy. Choices that impact our security, the operation of the country etc can not be made by individuals. Choices by wealthy business people to use their wealth including tax cuts to develop production OUTSIDE this country may be good for them as individuals but are not good for economy. When we borrow money from foreign countries like China the interest we send not only leaves our economy but is being used to expand the military of China which may very well be a future problem.

The idea that the choices wealthy make as a group are better is not true. We get more benefit for that country by helping those in our country that will spend the money here and grow the economy or when the government uses the money to provide for our defense etc.

Successfully updated karma reason!

1 most businesses are going outside of the country because of the tax burden. those that aren't are going outside of the country because of the wage burden. ie, the taxes are too high and the wage is too high as well.

2 what is wrong with us helping other countries to get up on their feet.

if we can get them up on their feet then we won't have to send them money to keep them going. which we are doing including sending money to china. i am talking about our government sending their government money.

Successfully updated karma reason!

In most cases when the government spends tax dollars that money returns to the economy and helps individuals and business. If the Federal Government buys that tank the 1st Armored Division needs, Americans are put to work and the companies that make the tank earn a profit. That helps the people who own the stock of the companies who make and assemble that tank. It also provides something we NEED to protect our freedom. If the Federal government adds that Border Guard, that person spends the salary they are paid from taxes and that helps the economy. An expenditure the government makes that does not help our people is the interest on the debt that is paid to foreign investors. That tax money does not return to our economy.

this is crazy man. you are saying that the big businesses or any business can't make any choices. and then turn around and state that when the government buys a tank it is helping a company make a profit.

but you are totally against profit.

citizens don't buy tanks.

but they do buy cars, motorcycles, bicycles, trucks, toys, and what ever else. so who keeps most people working the government or citizens. i would say citizens. even if they buy stuff that they don't need they are still adding to the economy.

investers allow companies to start up and start building things that citizens and government buy.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply By: danielostPosted: Wednesday, December 26, 20071 most businesses are going outside of the country because of the tax burden. those that aren't are going outside of the country because of the wage burden. ie, the taxes are too high and the wage is too high as well.

That is not true. Most go outside to pay lower salaries and increase their profit margin. The proof of that are the lost American jobs and all the CLOSED industries. It is NOT the tax burden that is the issue.

They can and do make those choices and those choices are causing harm to the United States and our workers. That is a fact and when wealthy Americans take some of their wealth to open foreign plants and displace American Workers they take money from our economy and create economic harm to this country so they can increase their wealth and the profits!

If we continue on the path we are on, NOTHING will be made in the U.S. and we will be totally dependent of foreign production for all that we need. That has a negative economic and security aspect. There must be a balance.

investers allow companies to start up and start building things that citizens and government buy.

If those investments are NOT in the U.S. and employ American workers they do not benefit our country!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Your knowledge on economics, Gene, helps explain why you struggle.

BTW, using your own opinion as a source is both ridiculous and creepy.

What we know is that 25% of the current budget is literally taking money from one individual and handing it to another individual with nothing in return. This is the part of the discussion your pathetic strawman article ignores.

We aren't debating military spending or spending on roads or schools or whatever.

This is on the context in which you want taxes raised because we have deficit spending when 25% of our taxes are spent on welfare programs that literally take money from those who earn it to give to those who have not.

And individuals who have demonstrated the ability to create more than they consume are certainly better with money than those who have proven that they consume more than they produce.

Welfare, is, ultimately the giving of money to those who consume more than they produce. Any argument that implies that those people can spend money better is simply insane.

You live in a fantasy land of ideology.

Successfully updated karma reason!

That is not true. The Federal Budget is about $3 Trillion and where you get $750 Billion (25%) in welfare is simply not true. The only welfare in the federal Budget is Medicaid, Food stamps and section 8 for disabled. That is taking money from those that are able to work and provide for themselves to help those that need help. That help does not come close to 3/4 of a Trillion Dollars and is something most Americans agree with as a policy we should follow. We are not in the financial trouble because of these programs and these programs are not why spending has increased under the Bush Administration.

I have documented that it is Interest on the debt, The Iraq War, VA expenses due to the Iraq war that are the big spending increases.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have documented that it is Interest on the debt, The Iraq War, VA expenses due to the Iraq war that are the big spending increases.

you can document anything you want doesn't make it true.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Draginol

Join Date 03/2001

+137

Gene, I have posted the tables and pie charts over and over showing 25% of the budget is going to welfare.

Here is a link to an Encarta table taken from the CBO:

http://encarta.msn.com/media_461544509/U_S_Federal_Receipts_and_Outlays.html

Outlays	Billions of U.S. Dollars
Total outlays	9.5	42.6	92.2	195.6	590.9	1,253.2	1,788.8	2,472.2	2,770.1
National defense	1.7	13.7	48.1	81.7	134.0	299.3	294.5	495.3	527.4
International affairs	0.1	4.7	3.0	4.3	12.7	13.8	17.2	34.6	33.3
Health	0.1	0.3	0.8	5.9	23.2	57.7	154.5	250.6	280.9
Medicare	0	0	0	6.2	32.1	98.1	197.1	298.6	392.0
Income security	1.5	4.1	7.4	15.7	86.6	147.1	253.5	345.8	367.2
Social security	0	0.8	11.6	30.3	118.5	248.6	409.4	523.3	585.9
Net interest payments	0.9	4.8	6.9	14.4	52.5	184.2	223.0	184.0	47.3
Other	5.3	14.2	14.4	37.2	131.0	204.0	239.5	339.9	336.0
*Estimate Income security includes all kinds of programs including food stamps, low income housing, unemployment, and hundreds of other smaller programs. Health represents mostly Medicaid. You forgot aln awful lot of welfare programs including a big one - the Earned Income Tax Credit. You also ignored TANF (the replacement to AFDC). You can also get more info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process And here is a link (from 2002) that displays the various programs under "income security" http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/bud14.html We spent $280 BILLION on Medicaid this year and in fact USA Today says the number may end up over $300 billion next year. We spent $33 billion on food stamps. And of course, you support increasing spending of welfare to even the middle class in the form of SCHIPS. Here you've been whining about the budget all this time and it turns out you had no idea what the US even spends on various programs. Hypocrisy is where you scream about deficits even as you scream in favor of increasing spending.

Successfully updated karma reason!

First, the $300 Billion for Medicaid is the TOTAL spent by BOTH Federal and the 50 States. 57% of the $300 Billion is part of the $3 Trillion Federal Budget. That means that the amount in the Federal Budget is $171 Billion NOT $300 Billion as you state. When you add the food stamps you have a little over $200 Billion out of a $3 Trillion dollar budget. This is the situation about Medicaid spending by the Fed:

Medicaid spending sees first decline
Posted 11/26/2006 11:09 PM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions |

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
Medicaid spending has declined unexpectedly this year, the first drop since the health program for the poor was created in 1965.
The historic reversal will free up billions of dollars in state budgets. Medicaid has been the fastest-growing expense for states over the past 10 years.
Medicaid spending fell 1.4% in the first nine months of the year compared with the same period a year ago, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The drop was even greater — an unprecedented a 5.4% decline — after adjusting for the rate of health care inflation.
The spending has been reduced by cost-controlling efforts and a shift of some prescription-drug expenses to Medicare, the federal health program for the elderly.
"States have made really aggressive changes in how care is managed in Medicaid," Arizona Medicaid Director Anthony Rodgers said. "Every state has taken a different approach, but the success can be seen almost everywhere."
Medicaid provides health care to 56 million poor Americans. The federal government sets broad rules for the program and pays 57% of the expense. States run the program and pay 43% of the cost. The program is on track to spend $300 billion in federal and state money in 2006, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports.

As usual you do not know what you are talking about. Welfare is not the problem with our spending!!!!!

Successfully updated karma reason!

your right gene it isn't welfare or any other set of programs.

we have 565 reasons for our spending problems.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply By: danielostPosted: Thursday, December 27, 2007your right gene it isn't welfare or any other set of programs.we have 565 reasons for our spending problems.

The real reason for the deficit is the Iraq War, increased Interest on the Debt and the VA expense berceuse of the Iraq War. If it were not for those three we would not have an annual budget deficit even with the tax cuts! Bush is responsible for all three of these things.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The real reason for the deficit is

we have 565 reasons for our spending problems.

and we voted them all into office.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply By: danielostPosted: Thursday, December 27, 2007

The real reason for the deficit is

we have 565 reasons for our spending problems.

and we voted them all into office.

We did not vote for Bush or the members of Congress to borrow 1 out of every 5 dollars that we spend and then pay the interest as the debt piles up. That policy will increase the Federal Budget EACH YEAR by $200 Billion Dollars. I do not recall Bush or any member of Congress when they were running for office and seeking our vote tell us that that their plan. We are fighting a major war and this is the FIRST time we did not provide a SURTAX to pay the added cost of the war! Who does Bush and the GOP think will pay the two Trillion Dollars the Iraq war will cost?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2415

First, the $300 Billion for Medicaid is the TOTAL spent by BOTH Federal and the 50 States

The $280 billion is spent by the federal government in 2007. We aren't talking about what it paid in fiscal year 2006.

As usual you do not know what you are talking about. Welfare is not the problem with our spending!!!!!

Ah, so you don't address the evidence, you simply close your eyes and pronounce that I don't know what I'm talking about.

I provide a literal table from the CBO on expenses and you just ignore it. Nice.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: