The President keeps demanding more compromise from Republicans in this Debt Limit Debate, and yet he has still not submitted a plan. Yet the Republican Party is called "the Party of No." The GOP is the only side that has given a plan. Obama said the big sounding number "$4 Trillion in cuts" without submitting a plan in writing. The only plan Obama has is "raise the debt limit, do nothing else." It's akin to giving a new credit card to a person whose credit score is in the 400s due to his running up debt and never cutting spending.
Obama keeps at the same lines that haven't convinced the American people to begin with:
Blah blah blah millionaires and billionaires blah blah blah private jet owners blah blah blah pay their fair share blah blah blah balanced approach blah blah blah revenue increases blah blah blah Bush's fault blah.
I'm tired of it. The American people are tired of it. Obama's approval rating has dropped in the last weeks, and also has seen an increase in the President's "strongly disapprove" numbers. There is no solution from Obama proposed except for naming a big sounding number and threatening to veto anything that doesn't let him tax the rich more, even though those increases will not even dent the debt and will certainly delay businesses from hiring if not cost jobs.
The only proposal Obama put in writing was his proposed 2012 budget. That was voted down in the Senate 0-97. Not only did zero Republicans vote for it, neither did a single Democrat. Nobody voted yes on it. Not one. That was Obama's only proposal. The rest has been a the same recycled rhetoric I listed above.
Obama keeps calling for network television time to tell us the same recycled lines. I for one am tired of it. Here's the point, and there is no two ways about it: We are out of money. We cannot keep spending to this level. Failure to take our medicine now will mean legitimately huge cuts in the future. The choice is yours, Mr. President. We can take one bitter pill now or a bottle later. But sooner or later we're going to have to take our medicine and cut our spending.
Showing posts with label Debt Limit Debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debt Limit Debate. Show all posts
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Obama's Poll Numbers Keep Dropping in Debt Limit Debate
More bad news for President Obama in this Debt Limit debate: His poll numbers are dropping. In the latest series of Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll on Wednesday (1), Obama's job approval is down to 45% with likely voters. It's stayed in that low to mid 40s place, by the way, for the past week or so.
Further, and this is very important: 42% of Americans STRONGLY DISAPPROVE of the job Obama is doing. That translates to mean that 42% of Americans will almost certainly not vote for Obama in 2012. A further 11% somewhat disapprove of Obama's job performance. Meanwhile, the total approval for Obama is only 45%. You see what I'm saying here? The number of people who are saying "I don't like anything Obama is doing" nearly matches the total number of people who think Obama's doing even a moderately okay job.
Do the math, friends. This means that as much as 20% of the voting public can be persuaded to vote against Obama (depending on the day's fluctuations). From this standpoint, we only need to persuade 1/3 of those people to vote Republican. Just 1/3. If half of those people vote Republican in 2012, Obama would lose 55% to 35%. That's a nice victory.
While we're at it, the two most reliable polls out there, Gallup (2) and Rasmussen (3), showed in July that a generic Republican beats Obama. Gallup's poll of registered voters showed a Republican beating Obama 47% to 39%. Rasmussen's poll of likely voters shows a Republican beating Obama 47% to 41%. Obama keeps beating every candidate not named Romney in these polls, but those who are familiar with polls will tell you that this is a matter of the other Republican candidates not being well known by the public yet. (Many people choose the known quantity over the unknown automatically.)
Obama is losing support quickly. It's precisely what conservatives have been predicting for years now: Once Obama has a record. He cannot continue to speak in platitudes and claim a moral high ground that doesn't belong to him. The American public is becoming wise to Obama's game, and they don't want it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Rasmussen Obama Approval Index History
(2) Gallup: "Republican Candidate" Extends Lead vs. Obama to 47% to 39%
(3) Rasmussen Poll: Generic Presidential Ballot
Further, and this is very important: 42% of Americans STRONGLY DISAPPROVE of the job Obama is doing. That translates to mean that 42% of Americans will almost certainly not vote for Obama in 2012. A further 11% somewhat disapprove of Obama's job performance. Meanwhile, the total approval for Obama is only 45%. You see what I'm saying here? The number of people who are saying "I don't like anything Obama is doing" nearly matches the total number of people who think Obama's doing even a moderately okay job.
Do the math, friends. This means that as much as 20% of the voting public can be persuaded to vote against Obama (depending on the day's fluctuations). From this standpoint, we only need to persuade 1/3 of those people to vote Republican. Just 1/3. If half of those people vote Republican in 2012, Obama would lose 55% to 35%. That's a nice victory.
While we're at it, the two most reliable polls out there, Gallup (2) and Rasmussen (3), showed in July that a generic Republican beats Obama. Gallup's poll of registered voters showed a Republican beating Obama 47% to 39%. Rasmussen's poll of likely voters shows a Republican beating Obama 47% to 41%. Obama keeps beating every candidate not named Romney in these polls, but those who are familiar with polls will tell you that this is a matter of the other Republican candidates not being well known by the public yet. (Many people choose the known quantity over the unknown automatically.)
Obama is losing support quickly. It's precisely what conservatives have been predicting for years now: Once Obama has a record. He cannot continue to speak in platitudes and claim a moral high ground that doesn't belong to him. The American public is becoming wise to Obama's game, and they don't want it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Rasmussen Obama Approval Index History
(2) Gallup: "Republican Candidate" Extends Lead vs. Obama to 47% to 39%
(3) Rasmussen Poll: Generic Presidential Ballot
Thursday, July 21, 2011
GOP Compromise IS Raising the Debt Limit
The Debt Limit Battle continues to rage and President Obama is continuing to demand compromise from the Republican Party. In essence, he wants "some of his stuff" (ie tax increases) in return for cuts. I would like to make a different argument: The GOP is giving the President a debt limit increase. That is where they are compromising. They are giving Obama the ability to borrow more money. For this, the GOP is requiring significant cuts in government spending so that we can begin to reduce our debt and, if possible, make this increase the last increase.
It's not dissimilar to the debt limit increase that Ronald Reagan signed in 1987 (you know, the one Liberals are trying to claim as Reagan asking for a debt limit increase?). Time to give you some history that Liberals won't tell you. Reagan agreed to increase the debt limit in exchange only for spending cuts so that another increase was not necessary. He was essentially promoting a Cut, Cap and Balance plan. Unfortunately, Presidents cannot pass legislation, at least not Constitutionally speaking. (Someone please go tell Obama.)
The GOP is giving Obama what he wants: a debt limit increase. That is what Obama is getting. He is getting the ability to maintain spending above and beyond what money is actually taken in for another 18 months. That is the compromise: spending cuts in exchange for a debt limit increase.
Obama and the Liberals keep telling us that the GOP needs to compromise. I've made the point over and over again that what the Democrats want to do is poison the economy by raising taxes on the people who own businesses and thus create jobs. I have said over and over again that you don't compromise with poison...you refuse to ingest it. That is what we are talking about now. Obama and the Democrats want to pass bad, fiscally unsustainable policies and they want the GOP to compromise their good, fiscally sustainable policies. I'm sorry, but this isn't about compromising between two equally good options or even two equally mediocre options or two somewhat bad options. This is about good ideas or bad ones.
The money doesn't exist to tax more and spend more. It doesn't. Not only would it be bad for the economy, but it would also be unsustainable. It would amount to more of the same unsustainable spending that will ultimately lead to a massive economic collapse akin to what Greece and other European nations are experiencing now.
One other issue: There is no Obama plan to compromise WITH. Obama's sole plan is "just raise the debt limit, do nothing else, pretend we don't have a spending problem at all." Sorry, but that plan must be a nonstarter because it is a terrible plan. That's like having a plan for building a stable house that starts with a paper mache foundation. It's a terrible idea. Obama has done nothing but wait for the GOP to cave to his terrible demands. Obama is the one who has not presented a reasonable plan.
The GOP is compromising: they are offering to raise the debt limit and bail out the bad debt created by this administration. Obama and the Democrats must compromise by cutting their irresponsible spending. The gravy train is over. The sugar daddy is out of sugar. It's time to spend what we have, not what we wish we have. That's the compromise. Take it or leave it.
It's not dissimilar to the debt limit increase that Ronald Reagan signed in 1987 (you know, the one Liberals are trying to claim as Reagan asking for a debt limit increase?). Time to give you some history that Liberals won't tell you. Reagan agreed to increase the debt limit in exchange only for spending cuts so that another increase was not necessary. He was essentially promoting a Cut, Cap and Balance plan. Unfortunately, Presidents cannot pass legislation, at least not Constitutionally speaking. (Someone please go tell Obama.)
The GOP is giving Obama what he wants: a debt limit increase. That is what Obama is getting. He is getting the ability to maintain spending above and beyond what money is actually taken in for another 18 months. That is the compromise: spending cuts in exchange for a debt limit increase.
Obama and the Liberals keep telling us that the GOP needs to compromise. I've made the point over and over again that what the Democrats want to do is poison the economy by raising taxes on the people who own businesses and thus create jobs. I have said over and over again that you don't compromise with poison...you refuse to ingest it. That is what we are talking about now. Obama and the Democrats want to pass bad, fiscally unsustainable policies and they want the GOP to compromise their good, fiscally sustainable policies. I'm sorry, but this isn't about compromising between two equally good options or even two equally mediocre options or two somewhat bad options. This is about good ideas or bad ones.
The money doesn't exist to tax more and spend more. It doesn't. Not only would it be bad for the economy, but it would also be unsustainable. It would amount to more of the same unsustainable spending that will ultimately lead to a massive economic collapse akin to what Greece and other European nations are experiencing now.
One other issue: There is no Obama plan to compromise WITH. Obama's sole plan is "just raise the debt limit, do nothing else, pretend we don't have a spending problem at all." Sorry, but that plan must be a nonstarter because it is a terrible plan. That's like having a plan for building a stable house that starts with a paper mache foundation. It's a terrible idea. Obama has done nothing but wait for the GOP to cave to his terrible demands. Obama is the one who has not presented a reasonable plan.
The GOP is compromising: they are offering to raise the debt limit and bail out the bad debt created by this administration. Obama and the Democrats must compromise by cutting their irresponsible spending. The gravy train is over. The sugar daddy is out of sugar. It's time to spend what we have, not what we wish we have. That's the compromise. Take it or leave it.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Obama is Not the Adult in the Room
Those of you who have watched Obama's drivelling speeches over the past, you'll see a man who is trying to present himself as the "adult in the room" who is mediating between the reasonable Democrats and the horribly unreasonable Republicans. He continues to list all the things that Republicans "refuse" to do, yet Obama is the person who is refusing to budge on his own desires. He acts as though the Republicans owe him more in compromise than giving him his debt ceiling increase. That IS the GOP's compromise...raising the debt limit!
Obama is not even an adult in the room at this point. He has acted like a spoiled child who, all of a sudden, is now expected to behave and is not given his own way because he says "I want" anymore. So Obama is throwing a tantrum behind closed doors. He's telling Congressman Eric Cantor, "Don't call my bluff," and promising to go to the American people. The people don't want what Obama's selling anymore, as evidenced by the drop in his poll numbers (1).
Obama excoriates Congress for "running up the credit card" when they were running up that card to fund spending Obama wanted! Stimulus one, stimulus two, Obamacare, do these sound familiar to anyone else? Shovel ready jobs that never happened, here a bailout, there a bailout, everywhere a bailout. It was Obama's spending that ran up those bills. Now he wants to pretend he had nothing to do with it. It's false.
Obama lead that spending, he said it was necessary. It failed, and now he just blames everyone else but him. It's not Obama's fault, it's Bush's fault...just ask Obama. Bush's worst deficit was just over $400 Billion (which I agree is still $400 Billion too much), but Obama has deficits that are three to four times as large. Obama's policies failed, and he tells us that things would've been worse if he hadn't overspent our tax dollars.
In the debt battle, Obama has said that "if the Republicans bring him a reasonable solution he'll discuss it." The Republican solution is very reasonable: Cut one dollar of spending for every new borrowed dollar and pass a balanced budget amendment so we are putting our house in order for good. So start cutting to get our budget in line then keep it there. That's a highly reasonable solution, one that American families use when it's time for THEM to get THEIR budgets in line. Most of them don't even keep borrowing in that solution. Obama is ignoring this solution because Republicans won't let him raise taxes. By the way, do you remember Obama saying "The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in a recession?" I sure do. Are we still in a recession? Yes. Is unemployment still high? Sure is...and rising. Now Obama flip-flops on this issue, because it suits his momentary desire.
Obama and the Drive-By Media keep trumpeting his proposal of "$4 Trillion in cuts." Here's the problem: There is no proposal by Obama that calls for that amount of cuts. Obama has no proposal on the table. The only cuts he has proposed are $2 Billion for next year. $2 Billion. That's NOTHING. That is .05% of the Federal Budget. To give an u nderstandable comparision, if a person who has a $50,000 per year income cuts .05% of THEIR budget it's an annual savings of $25. It's a pittance. We spent more than eight times that amount on pork barrel projects last year.
The truth is Obama has simply named a big sounding number. 10 year budgets are a joke anyway, because the next Congress or President (or even the same Congress and President) can choose to ignore in the following year. Don't believe me? Obama told us six months ago that we couldn't raise taxes in this economy, yet now he wants to because it will get people to let him keep spending. (Those taxes won't help the budget gaps at all past ten days, but they might convince Americans to let Obama keep spending.)
Even if it was real, that would still only cutting 10% of spending out of a budget that is spending nearly 30% more than is taken in. If you look at that same person whose annual income is $50,000 per year, that person would have to spend $65,000 per year, incurring $15,000 per year in debt. How sustainable would that be for YOUR family, especially when you include the compounding interest year after year? But Obama wants you to let him keep spending that amount of our money and compound that interest that WE will have to pay.
Do these arguments sound like an adult? Of course they don't. Obama can't see that it might be his policies, it's always somebody else's fault, usually a President whose been out of office for three years now. Bottom line: Obama has strongly contributed to this crisis. His policies have put us in this position as it pertains to the debt. Obama has run up the credit card and wants to be given another one to fulfill his spending habit. He is not the adult in the room. He is the spoiled child who is trying to claim the adult's status.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Rasmussen - Obama Approval Index
Obama is not even an adult in the room at this point. He has acted like a spoiled child who, all of a sudden, is now expected to behave and is not given his own way because he says "I want" anymore. So Obama is throwing a tantrum behind closed doors. He's telling Congressman Eric Cantor, "Don't call my bluff," and promising to go to the American people. The people don't want what Obama's selling anymore, as evidenced by the drop in his poll numbers (1).
Obama excoriates Congress for "running up the credit card" when they were running up that card to fund spending Obama wanted! Stimulus one, stimulus two, Obamacare, do these sound familiar to anyone else? Shovel ready jobs that never happened, here a bailout, there a bailout, everywhere a bailout. It was Obama's spending that ran up those bills. Now he wants to pretend he had nothing to do with it. It's false.
Obama lead that spending, he said it was necessary. It failed, and now he just blames everyone else but him. It's not Obama's fault, it's Bush's fault...just ask Obama. Bush's worst deficit was just over $400 Billion (which I agree is still $400 Billion too much), but Obama has deficits that are three to four times as large. Obama's policies failed, and he tells us that things would've been worse if he hadn't overspent our tax dollars.
In the debt battle, Obama has said that "if the Republicans bring him a reasonable solution he'll discuss it." The Republican solution is very reasonable: Cut one dollar of spending for every new borrowed dollar and pass a balanced budget amendment so we are putting our house in order for good. So start cutting to get our budget in line then keep it there. That's a highly reasonable solution, one that American families use when it's time for THEM to get THEIR budgets in line. Most of them don't even keep borrowing in that solution. Obama is ignoring this solution because Republicans won't let him raise taxes. By the way, do you remember Obama saying "The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in a recession?" I sure do. Are we still in a recession? Yes. Is unemployment still high? Sure is...and rising. Now Obama flip-flops on this issue, because it suits his momentary desire.
Obama and the Drive-By Media keep trumpeting his proposal of "$4 Trillion in cuts." Here's the problem: There is no proposal by Obama that calls for that amount of cuts. Obama has no proposal on the table. The only cuts he has proposed are $2 Billion for next year. $2 Billion. That's NOTHING. That is .05% of the Federal Budget. To give an u nderstandable comparision, if a person who has a $50,000 per year income cuts .05% of THEIR budget it's an annual savings of $25. It's a pittance. We spent more than eight times that amount on pork barrel projects last year.
The truth is Obama has simply named a big sounding number. 10 year budgets are a joke anyway, because the next Congress or President (or even the same Congress and President) can choose to ignore in the following year. Don't believe me? Obama told us six months ago that we couldn't raise taxes in this economy, yet now he wants to because it will get people to let him keep spending. (Those taxes won't help the budget gaps at all past ten days, but they might convince Americans to let Obama keep spending.)
Even if it was real, that would still only cutting 10% of spending out of a budget that is spending nearly 30% more than is taken in. If you look at that same person whose annual income is $50,000 per year, that person would have to spend $65,000 per year, incurring $15,000 per year in debt. How sustainable would that be for YOUR family, especially when you include the compounding interest year after year? But Obama wants you to let him keep spending that amount of our money and compound that interest that WE will have to pay.
Do these arguments sound like an adult? Of course they don't. Obama can't see that it might be his policies, it's always somebody else's fault, usually a President whose been out of office for three years now. Bottom line: Obama has strongly contributed to this crisis. His policies have put us in this position as it pertains to the debt. Obama has run up the credit card and wants to be given another one to fulfill his spending habit. He is not the adult in the room. He is the spoiled child who is trying to claim the adult's status.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Rasmussen - Obama Approval Index
Monday, July 11, 2011
Dissecting the Liberal Talking Points: Taxes were not Cut in 2010
The Debt Limit debate is in full swing with the President and Congressional Democrats are breaking out their cliché fear mongering rhetoric. With that in mind, I wanted to take time this week to dissect these talking points and explain why they are false. For starters, Republicans are responsibly refusing to allow Democrats to raise taxes in this already strained economy. One talking point that keeps coming from the Left is “We tried tax cuts last year and they haven’t helped the economy.”
Inherent in this statement is a huge lie: In 2010 there were no tax cuts, other than a piddling little 2% cut in social security taxes. Other than that, all that happened was an extension of existing tax rates. Continuing the status quo by its very definition is not a cut. If I decide to maintain my current diet, including my current caloric intake, I cannot say I’ve cut calories. Yet Democrats want us to believe that the President cut income taxes. He didn’t cut income taxes. He simply didn’t raise them.
You see, friends, Liberals seem to believe that the proper income tax rates are always whatever the last Democrat President’s tax increases set the rates. In our modern time, this means they consider any tax rate below Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase as a cut. That’s why they keep referring to the Bush tax rates which have been in place since 2003 as “tax cuts.” It’s pure sophistry. The current tax rates have been in place since 2003. Those rates will now continue until 2012. The current tax rates we have now are the tax rates, period. They are not a cut anymore. In 2003 when they were enacted they were cuts, because they reduced tax rates from what the rates were in 2002. The rates this year are precisely the same as they were last year, as they were the year before and since 2003. Simply maintaining them is not a cut.
President Obama didn’t cut taxes. The reason tax cuts are good for the economy is because it means people have more take home pay in their paycheck. Let’s use Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Regardless of what Liberals want to tell you, every tax bracket saw a rate cut. So let’s look at the lowest tax bracket as an example, shall we? Let’s take that person in the bottom tax bracket. Prior to the Bush tax cuts, that bracket was 15%. So a person who is in that bottom bracket who has an annual income of $20,000 per year under the previous brackets would be paying $3000 per year in federal taxes. Under the Bush cuts that individual’s tax rate was cut to 10%. So instead of paying $3000 in federal taxes, now they are paying $2000 in federal taxes.
It may not sound like much, but it’s actually a big difference in that person’s budget. It’s a difference of about $80 per month. To that person who is making only $20,000 per year in salary (that’s a bit over $1600 per month), an extra $80 per month is a big difference.
$80 a month extra is actually a big deal even for someone making more than $20,000 per year. I’ll use some examples in my own personal budget as someone who does make a decent amount over that figure: $80 is roughly the amount I spend every two weeks on groceries for myself. It’s also approximately what I spend for two weeks worth of gas for my car. $80 is about what I pay for car insurance each month. I drive a used car that has close to 100,000 miles on it, so I budget about $80 per month for repairs as needed.
While we’re at it, consider the fact that I’m already paying all those items with the money I’m currently earning. Unlike the Federal government, I’m living within my financial means. Actually, I’m able to fulfill my budget, have a little bit of play money and save about 5% of my income. An extra $80 would make a HUGE difference in my life. With $80 more each month, I could go out to dinner five more times each month than I do now. I could afford to go to the movies more often. In the summer, $80 would give me the ability to play golf two more times each month at a nice golf course. One of my favorite things to do is go see my local minor league baseball team’s games. With $80 per month, I could go to four Rochester Redwings games with a friend each month during the summer.
Perhaps you don’t understand how me having an extra $80 helps the economy. Here’s how: Someone has to take my money at the movie theater. Somebody has to pour my soda and scoop my popcorn. Somebody has to mow the grass at the golf course and maintain the tee boxes and greens. Somebody has to work the box office at the ball game. Somebody has to cook the hot dog and pour the beverage I’ll buy there at the game and take my money when I buy those items.
When lots of people suddenly have more money in their paychecks and their fixed expenses stay the same (for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, fixed expenses are things like housing, car payments, and utilities that are always part of your budget each month), it gets spent on buying new things that aren’t needed at the moment, like a car or new furniture or a new television. If several people choose to go to the movies more regularly, the theater needs to staff their shifts with more ticket takers, ushers, and concession stand attendants. Another person might choose to buy new clothes, which means the clothing store needs to have someone there to take care of the shoppers. Not to mention the fact that the company that makes the clothes is now selling more items and increasing its production. Even if I put the entirety of that money into savings, that’s an extra $1000 in the bank. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, banks don’t just hang on to your money in a big safe. They use that money to give loans to businesses and individuals. That’s why the pay you interest.)
That’s why tax cuts help the economy. In 2010, there was no cut. My paycheck didn’t see any significant increase in take home pay. Saw that 2% cut in social security taxes…it meant a whopping extra $8 in my paycheck over the course of a month. I can buy one fast food meal with that (hardly world-changing). For all intents and purposes, my take home pay did not change. There was no tax cut. People didn’t have any more money in their pockets, so they didn’t have anything extra to spend. So basically, we did nothing and nothing happened. What a shock.
It is an Obama lie taxes were cut. It’s a further lie to say that Republicans are “fighting to keep the tax cuts of millionaires and billionaires.” The current rates have been in place for eight years to date. They are not a cut. They are the tax rates. Should those rates be increased, it would not be removing a tax cut, it would be raising taxes. Specifically, it would be raising taxes on the very people who own businesses. It would be raising taxes on the people who create jobs. Same goes for raising capital gains taxes. You are taking business capital out of the budgets of business owners. Not a wise decision when what this country needs is more jobs.
This particular talking point is nothing more than class warfare. They are trying to play divide and conquer, to tell people that the benevolent government will get back at those evil people who have more money than you. Let me ask you a question, if you are one such person who believes it would be good to get back at that rich person: If they have less money, does it help you at all? Do you suddenly have more wealth? No. Only the government will be wealthier. You think the government is going to give it to you? Only in the form of government programs that keep you in poverty. The only equality of outcome government can give you is equality of bad results by trickling up poverty.
The economy won’t be improved by taking more from the wealthy. Neither will the deficit be reduced. As Senator Marco Rubio demonstrated last week, it would only pay for about ten days of deficit spending. What’s the plan for dealing with the other 355 days? Here’s the truth that Obama won’t tell you: To achieve the positive results of tax cuts, you have to actually reduce the current rates. The 2010 tax extension did not increase anyone’s take-home pay. It won’t lead to new revenue through new taxpayers via new jobs. Tax cuts work. They’ve worked every time they’ve been tried. Maintaining the status quo and expecting new and better results doesn’t happen.
When the President and other Liberals try to say “we tried tax cuts, they didn’t work,” know that it’s a lie. They didn’t cut taxes. They just didn’t raise them. They didn’t do unnecessary harm to the economy in 2010 by raising taxes, that much is true. They also didn’t do anything to help it. They just let it sit still in its ill state.
Inherent in this statement is a huge lie: In 2010 there were no tax cuts, other than a piddling little 2% cut in social security taxes. Other than that, all that happened was an extension of existing tax rates. Continuing the status quo by its very definition is not a cut. If I decide to maintain my current diet, including my current caloric intake, I cannot say I’ve cut calories. Yet Democrats want us to believe that the President cut income taxes. He didn’t cut income taxes. He simply didn’t raise them.
You see, friends, Liberals seem to believe that the proper income tax rates are always whatever the last Democrat President’s tax increases set the rates. In our modern time, this means they consider any tax rate below Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase as a cut. That’s why they keep referring to the Bush tax rates which have been in place since 2003 as “tax cuts.” It’s pure sophistry. The current tax rates have been in place since 2003. Those rates will now continue until 2012. The current tax rates we have now are the tax rates, period. They are not a cut anymore. In 2003 when they were enacted they were cuts, because they reduced tax rates from what the rates were in 2002. The rates this year are precisely the same as they were last year, as they were the year before and since 2003. Simply maintaining them is not a cut.
President Obama didn’t cut taxes. The reason tax cuts are good for the economy is because it means people have more take home pay in their paycheck. Let’s use Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Regardless of what Liberals want to tell you, every tax bracket saw a rate cut. So let’s look at the lowest tax bracket as an example, shall we? Let’s take that person in the bottom tax bracket. Prior to the Bush tax cuts, that bracket was 15%. So a person who is in that bottom bracket who has an annual income of $20,000 per year under the previous brackets would be paying $3000 per year in federal taxes. Under the Bush cuts that individual’s tax rate was cut to 10%. So instead of paying $3000 in federal taxes, now they are paying $2000 in federal taxes.
It may not sound like much, but it’s actually a big difference in that person’s budget. It’s a difference of about $80 per month. To that person who is making only $20,000 per year in salary (that’s a bit over $1600 per month), an extra $80 per month is a big difference.
$80 a month extra is actually a big deal even for someone making more than $20,000 per year. I’ll use some examples in my own personal budget as someone who does make a decent amount over that figure: $80 is roughly the amount I spend every two weeks on groceries for myself. It’s also approximately what I spend for two weeks worth of gas for my car. $80 is about what I pay for car insurance each month. I drive a used car that has close to 100,000 miles on it, so I budget about $80 per month for repairs as needed.
While we’re at it, consider the fact that I’m already paying all those items with the money I’m currently earning. Unlike the Federal government, I’m living within my financial means. Actually, I’m able to fulfill my budget, have a little bit of play money and save about 5% of my income. An extra $80 would make a HUGE difference in my life. With $80 more each month, I could go out to dinner five more times each month than I do now. I could afford to go to the movies more often. In the summer, $80 would give me the ability to play golf two more times each month at a nice golf course. One of my favorite things to do is go see my local minor league baseball team’s games. With $80 per month, I could go to four Rochester Redwings games with a friend each month during the summer.
Perhaps you don’t understand how me having an extra $80 helps the economy. Here’s how: Someone has to take my money at the movie theater. Somebody has to pour my soda and scoop my popcorn. Somebody has to mow the grass at the golf course and maintain the tee boxes and greens. Somebody has to work the box office at the ball game. Somebody has to cook the hot dog and pour the beverage I’ll buy there at the game and take my money when I buy those items.
When lots of people suddenly have more money in their paychecks and their fixed expenses stay the same (for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, fixed expenses are things like housing, car payments, and utilities that are always part of your budget each month), it gets spent on buying new things that aren’t needed at the moment, like a car or new furniture or a new television. If several people choose to go to the movies more regularly, the theater needs to staff their shifts with more ticket takers, ushers, and concession stand attendants. Another person might choose to buy new clothes, which means the clothing store needs to have someone there to take care of the shoppers. Not to mention the fact that the company that makes the clothes is now selling more items and increasing its production. Even if I put the entirety of that money into savings, that’s an extra $1000 in the bank. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, banks don’t just hang on to your money in a big safe. They use that money to give loans to businesses and individuals. That’s why the pay you interest.)
That’s why tax cuts help the economy. In 2010, there was no cut. My paycheck didn’t see any significant increase in take home pay. Saw that 2% cut in social security taxes…it meant a whopping extra $8 in my paycheck over the course of a month. I can buy one fast food meal with that (hardly world-changing). For all intents and purposes, my take home pay did not change. There was no tax cut. People didn’t have any more money in their pockets, so they didn’t have anything extra to spend. So basically, we did nothing and nothing happened. What a shock.
It is an Obama lie taxes were cut. It’s a further lie to say that Republicans are “fighting to keep the tax cuts of millionaires and billionaires.” The current rates have been in place for eight years to date. They are not a cut. They are the tax rates. Should those rates be increased, it would not be removing a tax cut, it would be raising taxes. Specifically, it would be raising taxes on the very people who own businesses. It would be raising taxes on the people who create jobs. Same goes for raising capital gains taxes. You are taking business capital out of the budgets of business owners. Not a wise decision when what this country needs is more jobs.
This particular talking point is nothing more than class warfare. They are trying to play divide and conquer, to tell people that the benevolent government will get back at those evil people who have more money than you. Let me ask you a question, if you are one such person who believes it would be good to get back at that rich person: If they have less money, does it help you at all? Do you suddenly have more wealth? No. Only the government will be wealthier. You think the government is going to give it to you? Only in the form of government programs that keep you in poverty. The only equality of outcome government can give you is equality of bad results by trickling up poverty.
The economy won’t be improved by taking more from the wealthy. Neither will the deficit be reduced. As Senator Marco Rubio demonstrated last week, it would only pay for about ten days of deficit spending. What’s the plan for dealing with the other 355 days? Here’s the truth that Obama won’t tell you: To achieve the positive results of tax cuts, you have to actually reduce the current rates. The 2010 tax extension did not increase anyone’s take-home pay. It won’t lead to new revenue through new taxpayers via new jobs. Tax cuts work. They’ve worked every time they’ve been tried. Maintaining the status quo and expecting new and better results doesn’t happen.
When the President and other Liberals try to say “we tried tax cuts, they didn’t work,” know that it’s a lie. They didn’t cut taxes. They just didn’t raise them. They didn’t do unnecessary harm to the economy in 2010 by raising taxes, that much is true. They also didn’t do anything to help it. They just let it sit still in its ill state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)