Why the National Debt Doesn't Matter--Right Now

I truly do not know why I respond to your idiodic blogs, Farrell! Your patterns of thinking has been proven to be skewed at every presentation!

Earlier, on another of your "blerps", one comment was suggested it would be more beneficial for you to "shoe-shine" somewhere in D.C.

...and I certainly second that suggestion strongly!

Haberdashery of ID 11:05AM October 29, 2010

To open minded people who read peer reviewed scholarship, serious journalism and primary documents for information rather than corporate sponsered TP propaganda;

Obama's stimulus package has mostly helped the rich. Corporate profits reached over $1.6 trillion in the second quarter of this year (before taxes and dividend payments).

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2010/txt/gdp2q10_3rd.txt

In addtion, Obama has not raised taxes on anyone and is only willing to allow the top margin to reset to 39.6% next year. Effective rates of taxation on everyone, including the rich have never been lower.

CBO data for 2006 shows an effective rate on the top one percent of 31% for all federal taxes but only 19% for individual income tax and 10% for corporate tax. The top one percent may pay nearly a third of their pretax income in taxes but they have nearly a fifth of the pretax income. This group had an average annual income of nearly $1.75 million.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/04/cbo-top-1-earned-19-of-income.html

It is also the case that the rich benefit disproportionately from the middle class tax cuts that will be left in place.

"...recent estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation show that extending just the middle-class tax cuts would provide more than $6,300 in tax cuts to households with incomes above $200,000, on average, compared to $1,132 in tax cuts for households with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000. The Joint Tax Committee estimates show:Households with incomes exceeding $1 million will receive an average tax cut of $6,349 in 2011 if the middle-class tax cuts are extended while the high-income tax cuts are allowed to expire."

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3263

One reason we have yet another Jobless Recovery is higher productivity;

"The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports figures of $12.8806 trillion-in 2005 dollars-for 2009 and $12.9762 trillion for 2006). While these measures of total output produced are nearly identical, the figures for the number of workers employed and the number of work hours required to produce that output are strikingly different. In 2006, about 138.7 million workers...were employed, compared to only about 134.4 million in 2009. The total time spent at work, by all workers 16 and over, was about 18 billion hours fewer in 2009 than in 2006."

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0910reuss.html

Higher productivity allows the same quantity of output with far fewer workers.

Also, average spending is down due to low demand due to higher levels of income inequality;

Could it be...that effective demand is hampered by the degree of income concentration at the top...The top 1 percent of Americans got a little more than 8 percent of total income in the late 1970s, they now have 24 percent of income – a breathtaking increase Median incomes have hardly increased over the last three decades..

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/20134cf8-bf1e-11df-a789-00144feab49a.html

steve of IL 8:17PM October 28, 2010

A total opinion piece without evidence to support. Just a insult article. No longer the "t" word but "Tea Party crazies"and "Tea Party nuttiness.".

I posted link here that said 3-4 Tea are Democrats or Independents. I've seen no Republicans in Congress knocking Tea. Unless they lost to one like in Alaska.

The bathhouse jokes about you I use to ignore, but your lowbrow articles & TEA insulting got me doing bathhouse jokes as well. I'll stop when you do. You started long, long ago.

John F. Kennedy and Reagan agreed. Cutting taxes increase government revenue. That cutting taxes caused rich to pay more taxes. Caused Americas longest Bull Market:

“President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation)”

“.Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).”

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

Don’t have time to look up source, but think Bush tax cuts increase was 4.6 % more revenue from rich...

Bill Hedges of MO 12:58PM October 28, 2010