National debt can rest easy

....speak. Or, the equivalent to "workers of the world unite".

All men are created equal George Bruce, but not all outcomes are equal.

Let's take two people. One studies in high school, has parents who work closely with him/her and gets good grades and goes to college.

Another student does not imply him/herself, the parents don't encourage or raise the child and they party through high school and do not get good grades and go to college.

Upon graduation one goes to college and one starts to work in a factory. In four years one graduates from college and is hired by a stock brokerage at $125,000 per year the other is still working at the factory for $35,000 per year.

Jump ahead 20 years and now the stock broker is making $300,000 and the factory worker just broke $50,000.

Now the factory worker, a Democrat is angry about his/her lot in life and feels as if there is no social equity, no economic fairness,

Take another example of someone who parties and spends their money on cruises and tropical vacations and squanders their earnings, over extending their credit situation, smoking, drinking and living large. At 50 years old they are tapped out and have no investments.

Another person lives a more structured and planned life and saves money, invests & turns their earnings into 3X their investment.

Now the first person is envious of the choice which the other person made because they have created wealth,

UNLESS a person is limited by ability due to unforeseeable circumstances (mental or physical challenges), the CHOICES we make determine our destiny, financial standing, success and overall outcome in life 99% of the time.

What G. Bruce and others want to do is legislate outcome.......tell someone who has the ambition and makes the free choice to make the sky the limit and live the American Dream that they make too much, need to share it, are greedy, selfish and basically demotivate the movers and shakers who make this economy work!

Democrats or Republicans? The research says Democrats. From a Slate slide show on "The Great Divergence", about the increasing growth of inequality in the nation since the late 1970s.
http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/fs/0//entry/2266218/

"In all income categories except the 95th percentile, income growth rates under Democratic presidents exceeded income growth rates under Republican ones. That suggests greater income equality can coexist with (or even help create) greater prosperity.

2) The 95th percentile fared about the same under Democrats and Republicans. (This chart shows it doing slightly better under Democrats, but the margin of error erases the Democrats' advantage.) Bartels' party-based interpretation of income inequality can't address the Great Divergence, Part 2—the stratospheric rise in incomes at the very top—because for this group, it doesn't matter much whether a Democrat or a Republican inhabits the White House. Political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, of Yale and Berkeley, respectively, argue that the apparently nonpartisan solicitude Democrats and Republicans express toward the rich is the result of a massive increase in Washington's corporate lobbying sector since the 1970s—and that the growing power of big business in Washington has been a major contributor to the Great Divergence."

While neither party is grappling seriously with deficits, the Republican plan is the more seriously out of whack with reality, as this report from the Tax Policy Center makes plain. Deficits still don't matter to Republicans, getting elected does.
http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/
http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/CHAS-89LPZ9?OpenDocument

This comes from the Washington Post, so if the Republicans supported the takeover of all health care and funding of abortions, those principled (wink, wink) journalists at the Washington post would find something to whine about.

Practicing the progressive principle of "if you say something enough, people will start to believe it", they write: "On the contrary, it would increase the debt by $4 trillion - yes, trillion - by extending all the expiring Bush tax cuts and adding new ones, including a poorly conceived deduction for small businesses. "

What part of cutting spending at the same time that you cut taxes do the progressive dolts in this country not understand.

If small businesses are able to start hiring again, the pool of those paying into the government (versus being dependents on unemployment) will pay taxes and increase revenue. Low unemployment translates into more taxpayers and hence.....more revenue.

Then comes the red herring argument and one which progressives always ask so that they can start with their goosestep march against any cuts to any programs. The Washington Post writes:

"Minority Leader John Boehner crowed that the rollback would save $100 billion in the first year alone. Yes, but from where? Anyone can make that promise; tell us which NASA programs you will end, which national parks you will close. "

OH MY GOD.....we NEED to know specifically which areas he would cut so that progressives can come up with the "can't do that", "but it's for the children", "social justice", "social equity" arguments. Precisely why they probably have a darned good idea what needs to be cut and are laying in wait to call Repubicans "cold hearted" or "mean spirited".

And that call for a "hiring freeze" is just terrible according to the Washington Post. DUH! We certainly don't need more single tasking bureaucrats running around Washington on the public dole, accomplishing minimal tasks and spending us into oblivion.

Democrats have been in charge for FOUR YEARS......... Democrats economic policy is a train wreck in progress....and even the less astute in the American citizenry know it....Nov 2nd cant come quick enough

To talk about tax cuts in the same discussion with government spending reveals how democrats believe all of the nation's wealth belongs to the government......to then be released back to the private sector as government sees fit.

The big-government reach of Democrats is what is killing the economy.....With major uncertainties affecting health care costs......looming environmental regulations.......new uncertain financial regulations ......the largest tax increase in history coming 1/1/11......no federal budget even debated - much less passed.......etc etc etc

For any democrat liberal progressive whatever to come to this forum and tout the economic policies of the left .......should be an insult to the common sense of all Americans

Bruce, unfortunately you're dead wrong and the numbers show it quite clearly.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/h...

Above are annual revenues, please pay attention to column J and the sharp rise in actual revenues to the federal government following the 2003 tax CUTS....you really can't argue with a 25% increase in receipts by 2008.

The PROBLEM was not an increase in Revenue but rather the corresponding increase in SPENDING that was allowed to happen....just like Concord, our Federal Government has a SPENDING problem not a REVENUE problem.

When people keep more of their labor (money) we all win.

From the Center on Budget and Public Policy:
"Despite persistent claims to the contrary, revenue growth over the current business cycle actually has been negative, after adjusting for inflation and population growth. Specifically, per capita revenues were lower in real terms in 2006 than in 2001, when the last recovery ended and the current business cycle started. While revenues have grown since 2004, this growth has not yet fully compensated for the fall in revenues that occurred in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Indeed, the overall lack of revenue growth over the current business cycle is almost unprecedented for economic recoveries since the end of World War II. It stands in stark contrast to claims that the President’s tax cuts have boosted economic and revenue growth to remarkable levels."
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=723

It's still an article of faith among some that tax cuts always provide a stimulus to the economy, one that exceeds the revenue losses from the tax cuts. But there is ample evidence to the contrary, for as the figures above make clear, supply-side economics didn't work during the Bush years. And while the economy did grow, that growth was fueled by debt-driven consumer spending. Cutting taxes for the sake of cutting taxes seems at some point to reach a level of diminishing returns, if the Bush years are an accurate guide. Now tax cuts need to be targeted to investment and long-term growth, which appears to be what the current administration is starting to do. And if anyone is serious about reducing the deficit, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should die a natural death, and go gently into that good night.