Top Dem: Republican Budget Will ‘Haunt’ Mitt Romney

Reader Comments
Back to blog

brucetee writes "the free ride that those on the upper rungs on the income ladder have had need to come to an end"
My you have a BLIND EYES to facts I've been giving:
“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html
Your links not found.
Notice I give my points THEN give link. How I, smarter than Yale PHD do it.
IN THE PAST:
In “Ted Nugent, Hilary Rosen Sheltering Obama from Scrutiny” you wrote “In fact average workers during that period,lost ground, due to stagnant wage increases,and reduced purchasing power". Did not find proof of that in your two links. Prehaps you can quote as I do... For sure, your earlier quote “the economic growth,of which he speakes, benefited, by a wide margin,those on the upper rungs of the income ladder. very little ,if any, trickled down to the folks on main st” __ is NOT substantiated __ ... What he spoke has nothing to do with your two articles...
In the first link it says “Experts point to some of the usual suspects -- like technology and globalization -- to explain the widening gap between the haves and have-nots”
Also says “One major pull on the working man was the decline of unions and other labor protections, said Bill Rodgers, a former chief economist for the Labor Department, now a professor at Rutgers University”
Also says “International competition is another factor. While globalization has lifted millions out of poverty in developing nations, it hasn't exactly been a win for middle class workers in the U.S.”
Also says “While average folks were losing ground in the economy, the wealthiest were capitalizing on some of those same factors, and driving an even bigger wedge between themselves and the rest of America”
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm
YOUR SECOND ARTICLE SAID ___ Second says “The latest census data depict a middle class that's shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government's safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/12/16/1713834/census-1-in-2-americans-are-poor.html#storylink=cpy”
YOU WROTE __ Don’t see how this, as you wrote, “In fact average workers during that period,lost ground, due to stagnant wage increases,and reduced purchasing power" MATCH UP as proof.
__
As I have quoted before (Reason for recession and high unemployment. Nothing to do with tax cuts for rich):
"It’s important to keep in mind that the recession had nothing to do with the tax cuts. The recession was brought on by destructive federal intervention in the subprime mortgage market, irresponsible funding and securitization of subprime loans by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, unsound Federal Reserve monetary policy, a lack of oversight by the Securities and Exchange Commission, greed and fraud committed by certain large banks and investment firms, and consumers who bought homes they really couldn’t afford."
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm

Bill Hedges of MO 5:31PM May 09, 2012

Just a couple of tidbits on the negative effects of the "bush tax cuts" on the economy.
-------------------------------------------------------------
usbudget.blogspot/2011/01/ effect_of_bush_tax_cut_on revenues
r. davis
-------------------------------------------------------------
www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures
-snapshot-20051026
-------------------------------------------------------------
the free ride that those on the upper rungs on the income ladder have had need to come to an end.

bruce b of NV 7:54AM May 09, 2012

Correction
$$$ 1/2 billion...

Bill Hedges of MO 12:44AM May 09, 2012

brucetee
I already made mince meat out of Van Hollen in my previous comment. Tax cuts for rich INCREASE government revenue. Each & every time over the last 60 years. Revenue is loss if Bush tax cut extension is not continued. You notice bum-bum signed extension last time.
WE passed 30 some odd bills in House. Never needed to come to this point of automatic cuts. (which by the way IT IS NOT. ALSO CHECK the date by which it must accomplished). Senate did not vote on OR re-write and send back to House. Democrats wanted this confrontation. Did on airports. Did on budget. Is Demos new style since Nov. 2, 2010.
I don’t know why brucetee is peeing. bum-bum has already harmed medicare more than we MIGHT. bum-bum stoled $$$ 500,000,000,000 wasn’t it from medicare to try and balance bumacare ? bum-bum put us on “short end of stick. ” I smell bum-bum’s rain water. It is not God sent..

Bill Hedges of MO 11:19PM May 08, 2012

It;s just like the republicans to try and renege on an agreement that they made.this time it's on the Mandated defense cuts.
Of course if this was to go through,it would be the middle class and the people on medicare that would come out on the short end of stick.
Mr. Van Hollen hit the bullseye,with his comments.
once again the republicans are peeing on the heads of senior's and the middle class.while doing this their trying to convince people it;s raining.

bruce b of NV 7:43PM May 08, 2012

bow tie quotes Van Hollen:
“if we don't ask the very wealthy to share more of the responsibility, then result is that everybody else and everything else gets hit a lot harder" ”
Is the rich that pay the government revenue. Far more that their share. There is but one way to save our Country. Stop government hanging of the producers of the economy:
1. "In every case over the last 60 years, major tax cuts have more than paid for themselves. In fact, every major tax cut since JFK has been followed by substantial increases in revenue, not to mention solid economic growth. Moreover, total federal revenue rose at a faster rate after each of those tax cuts than it did before them. Anyone can confirm these basic facts for themselves by checking federal budget data and economic indicators before and after major tax cuts (see, for example, Federal Budget Data, Data 360 Unemployment U.S., and Total Economy Database). Let’s take a closer look at the results of the last four major tax cuts (and then for good measure we’ll examine the Mellon tax cuts of the 1920s)."
"Bush Tax Cuts: President George W. Bush’s 2003 tax cuts generated a massive increase in federal tax revenue and were followed by 52 consecutive months of economic growth. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. Total federal revenue from 2003 to 2007".
"Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. During the same period, income tax revenue rose dramatically, going from $925 billion in 2003 to $1.53 trillion in 2007. As with other types of federal revenue, income tax revenue dropped slightly in 2008, down to $1.45 trillion, due to the fact that a recession began that year."
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm
2. More Clinton DEBUNLING... my favorite thing...
“The disastrous mistakes from Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt underscore the importance that Washington not raise taxes in a weak economy. But that doesn’t stop the Left from advancing the notion. They point to Clinton’s record as proof. After all, Congress pushed through a big tax increase under President Clinton, and the economy boomed, right?"
“Well, the truth is that the real boom didn’t happen until after 1997, the year Clinton cut taxes __(Ah Newt & Contract with America)__. From 1993-1996, a time when the economy was recovering from recession so expected growth should be strong, real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent and 11.2 million jobs were added. During the period 1997-2000 real economic growth averaged 4.2 percent and employment increased by 11.5 million jobs.”
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/10/20/hoover-fdr-and-clinton-tax-increases-a-brief-historical-lesson/

Bill Hedges of MO 4:05PM May 08, 2012

Romney won't be able to preach the Paradigm of Abundance (as opposed to the Paradigm of Scarcity) because he has embraced the Ryan budget that robs from the poor to give to the rich. Shame on him - it is an immoral budget, and although politically expedient, will be like a set of concrete boots on his candidacy.

Brad Arnold of MN 3:50PM May 08, 2012