Bush in 30 seconds ads

[opebo]

Hold on a second.  Have you seen these ads?  None of them has any Hitler references.  They're right there on the website if you haven't viewed them.  Passing judgement on something without seeing it is kinda foolish, wouldn't you agree?

CBS certainly has the right to decide not to run "issue ads".  Heck, I respect their right to just refuse an ad on the basis of poor taste.  But from the way some of the folks on the right have painted these ads you'd think they show George Bush running around waving a machete.  Personally I don't think these are contraversial ... just very good political ads.

I don't find them controversial, just incredibly obvious appeals to the ignorant.  The reason is this - the ad I saw shows a bunch of children working at arduous, low paying jobs, and claims that these are the people who will be 'paying off George Bush's 1 trillion dollar deficit'.  This is obvious garbage as these lower working class people pay no income tax.  Of course the typical viewer is either ignorant of this fact, or is in active denial - hence the ads would probably have been effective.

[opebo]

Hold on a second.  Have you seen these ads?  None of them has any Hitler references.  They're right there on the website if you haven't viewed them.  Passing judgement on something without seeing it is kinda foolish, wouldn't you agree?

CBS certainly has the right to decide not to run "issue ads".  Heck, I respect their right to just refuse an ad on the basis of poor taste.  But from the way some of the folks on the right have painted these ads you'd think they show George Bush running around waving a machete.  Personally I don't think these are contraversial ... just very good political ads.

I don't find them controversial, just incredibly obvious appeals to the ignorant.  The reason is this - the ad I saw shows a bunch of children working at arduous, low paying jobs, and claims that these are the people who will be 'paying off George Bush's 1 trillion dollar deficit'.  This is obvious garbage as these lower working class people pay no income tax.  Of course the typical viewer is either ignorant of this fact, or is in active denial - hence the ads would probably have been effective.

Umm ... do you need me to send you the income tax tables so you can see how much each group pays.  Every American wage earner pays taxes.  Everyone.

No, many low income people pay no income tax because their income doesn't exceed the personal or family exemptions they qualify for.  In addition to this fact, evenmost middle class people only pay a very small percentage of their income in taxes.  The vast majority the entire federal budget is funded by taxes on the very top portion of income earners - the uppermost end of the 'middle class', and of course primarily the rich.

[opebo]

Hold on a second.  Have you seen these ads?  None of them has any Hitler references.  They're right there on the website if you haven't viewed them.  Passing judgement on something without seeing it is kinda foolish, wouldn't you agree?

CBS certainly has the right to decide not to run "issue ads".  Heck, I respect their right to just refuse an ad on the basis of poor taste.  But from the way some of the folks on the right have painted these ads you'd think they show George Bush running around waving a machete.  Personally I don't think these are contraversial ... just very good political ads.

I don't find them controversial, just incredibly obvious appeals to the ignorant.  The reason is this - the ad I saw shows a bunch of children working at arduous, low paying jobs, and claims that these are the people who will be 'paying off George Bush's 1 trillion dollar deficit'.  This is obvious garbage as these lower working class people pay no income tax.  Of course the typical viewer is either ignorant of this fact, or is in active denial - hence the ads would probably have been effective.

So aside from income taxes, no one feels any effect of gigantic, brankrupting levels of defict spending? Pull the other one.

I'm sure if the U.S. defaults on its loan payments, resulting in a massive pullout domestically and internationally from the purchase of government bonds, forcing either: A) Massive tax increases B) Massive program cuts C) A Mostly non-functioning government D) All of the above, the lower-middle class will just be whistling dixie, safe from harm.

Right.

There's no such thing as a tax cut. If you get less money from the tax payer, you have to get more money from the bond purchaser, resulting in an even greater need for taxes in the future. Tax postponement is all you are really getting.  

Not so.  You simply reduce spending - particularly destructive redistributionist transfer payments like medicare.  Alas, Bush is not doing this - in fac the opposite.  Neverytheless, supply side arguments are quite true - even absent a spending reduction, lowering very high taxes will in fact increase economic growth and hence eventual tax collection.  So borrowing for a while is no big deal.  Besides, the deficit is not particularly large or disturbing right now, and there's no danger at all of 'default' or lack of foreign investor confidence.  Least of all is there any danger of deficits effecting interest rates (they never have).

[opebo]

Destructive redistributionist payments like Medicare...and I suppose Social Security too, right? Sure, why do we need those? If people can't pay for their own health care and well being, let them die, right? I suppose there should be absolutely no obligation on the part of anyone to help anyone else out if they don't want to.

Supply side has been tried and failed. Under Reagan, the deficits went up. Under Bush 43, they've gone up dramatically. Supply side economics does not increase tax revenue, it decreases it. Perhaps if taxes were really "very high" then this would happen. But tax rates in this country are already very low, especially for the wealthy. Cutting taxes for the rich in the 1960s, for example, from a top rate of 91 percent down to 70 percent was beneficial, as 91 percent was too high. But the economy was still quite good with a 70 percent rate on the rich...even with a 91 percent rate, it still wasn't bad, although growth was probably being held back a bit.

Tax cuts for the rich do benefit the economy slightly, but not nearly enough to offset the long term damage to the economy from the higher deficits that they create, and also they are not nearly as beneficial as increasing spending on social programs.

Tax cuts for the poor and middle class, however, do benefit the economy more, and also do much less damage to the deficit. Supply side theory would work better at the lower end of the economic spectrum, since the poor and middle class are much more likely to spend the extra money on purchases that will help the economy. Also, they are much more likely to spend their money domestically as opposed to the wealthy who are much more likely to use the extra money to open a new factory in a country where they can pay everyone $1/hour, or even otherwise to spend it internationally on a foreign vacation or second home, for example. The poor and middle class are much more likely to spend money on such things in the US, and also much more likely in general to spend the money rather than save it because they have more immediate need to spend it.

Yeah, I'm against those programs you mentioned above - medicare, social security, etc.  And no, supply side economics does work in general.  But of course your point about tax reduction is valid - one gains the most benefits in reducing very excessivly high taxes.  This is simply because with taxes above say 50% people genuinely don't bother to make money above a certain level - or they simply flee.  Capital flight is a big issue for socialist economies.  You're probably right that reducing taxes from 39.5% to 35% isn't going to make a huge difference, but this is all part of supply side reasoning - the Laffer curve.  Supply siders recognize that the tax reduction=more tax revenue doesn't work to infinity - obviously a 1% tax rate doesn't necessarily confiscate more than a 10% one.   That's why it takes the form of a bell curve.   I gaurantee that if you put the rates back up to 70% you'ld have an exodus of capital and the most productive individuals from the US.

What's more important recently has been the excellent reduction in Capital Gains taxes - really it is absurd that capital gains are taxed at all since a) they're mostly just inflation and b) its a tax on money that was already earned and taxed once.  Similar to Estate Taxes.

Tax reductions on the poor and middle class are practically impossible because they pay hardly any tax already.  Exempting them entirely tends to create a false impression that government spending is 'free', leading to a downward spiral towards socialism and a destruction of the source of wealth - capitalism.