Anyway, in a Wall Street Journal article otherwise devoted to how the Democrats might use the repeal (or non-repeal) of the Bush tax cuts as an issue in the upcoming election, we find this graphic:
You might want to sit with it a moment. Picture paints a thousand words and all that. Everyone except that teeny tiny sliver of the American population making over $300,000 will see their taxes reduced by President Obama's proposed tax policies. For the very wealthy, the tax rate goes back to Clinton-era tax levels.So therefore the GOP is against Obama's tax policies. Fighting tooth and nail to make sure their base (the "have-mores") get even more.
I realize that the Wall Street Journal is such a blatant mouthpiece for the Democrat Party that it will shamelessly and routinely lie to you about tax policy. All good competent economists know these things:
- Ronald Reagan was always right about everything
- Failing to repeal the Bush tax cuts will result in a the worst financial devastation ever.
- Taxes are always fairer under Republicans
- The economy is always worse under Democrats
13 comments:
undeniable as Climategate.
Phil Jones got to endorse papers for Oxburgh inquiry
It appears that the Oxburgh investigation let Dr. Phil Jones endorse what evidence (papers he’s published) to review.
What do the conservatives think about David Stockman's NYT op-ed? Or isn't he a true conservative anymore?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1280757606-amTnKEmAYP54uPFqKvyDGQ
Blue #2, I suspect that conservatives would say, yes, we agree with Stockman, but a recession is no time to raise taxes. I am not sure what conservatives would say about cutting Medicare and Social Security, considering how strong a voting group senior citizens are. I am not sure what conservatives would say about cutting defense spending (honestly, who is likely to attack us who we could defeat with half the military we have now?). I am sure Republicans/conservatives would gleefully eliminate Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit, but that is likely not that much money.
HTTP, you appear to be linking to (at least some) made up conversations, not anything from any official record. As for Steve McIntyre's email to Oxburgh and Oxburgh's response, this is what the AP had to say about McIntyre (as pulled from Wikipedia): "Some e-mails said McIntyre's attempts to get original data from scientists are frivolous and meant more for harassment than doing good science. There are allegations that he would distort and misuse data given to him. McIntyre disagreed with how he is portrayed. 'Everything that I've done in this, I've done in good faith,' he said.".
In any event, your link appears to be about which papers were peer reviewed by the CRU, not about the emails that were the subject of the investigation. And when Dayvoe recently said climate change is undeniable (as he did a few posts ago) he was referring to the work of the National Climatic Data Center at the Department of Commerce, nothing to do with the CRU (except of course to say they work in the same field and undoubtedly share data).
Question. Why does the wife still work for the married couples making over $300,000?
The man makes at least $150,000 and that is not using the woman make 75% of what men make statistic.
There are allegations that he would distort and misuse data given to him.
Like when he showed NASA had a Y2K bug that was a major distortion and misuse of data in that it embarrassed NASA.
And when Dayvoe recently said climate change is undeniable (as he did a few posts ago) he was referring to the work of the National Climatic Data Center at the Department of Commerce
Thanks for giving me an excuse for this.
Grim Days for Global Warmenists
In America, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been trumpeting that, according to its much-quoted worldwide temperature data, the first six months of this year were the hottest ever recorded. But expert analysis on Watts Up With That, the US science blog, shows that NOAA's claimed warming appears to be strangely concentrated in those parts of the world where it has fewest weather stations. In Greenland, for instance, two of the hottest spots, showing a startling five-degree rise in temperatures, have no weather stations at all.
By the way, a lot of people don't seem to understand that Obama cut taxes a bit further when he came into office, as part of the stimulus. If you think about it, you might remember hearing in the spring of 2009 that come June 2009 the government would withhold less money from your paycheck. You also may remember that when you filed your 2009 taxes (starting in January of 2010) there was an extra $400 tax credit there.
So for better or worse, despite Greenspan's declaration, Obama joins the ranks of Kennedy, Reagan and Bush (II) as a tax cutter. I don't believe anyone knows whether low income people and the middle class could see any further tax cuts this year. I think it would be enough to maintain the current situation.
HTTT, Just because a couple's tax status is married filing joint doesn't mean both spouses work. FWIW.
The AP repeated comments about McIntyre from the CRU, the people he sent emails to requesting information, I repeated what the AP said. Evidently whatever he did with NASA was not enough to cement his reputation.
On the other hand, Christopher Booker, whose comments you link to, apparently believes that asbestos is similar in chemical composition to talcum power and favors intelligent design over evolution. And what Dayvoe quoted from the National Climatic Data Center had to do with the past decade, not the first six months of this year. FWIW.
Just because a couple's tax status is married filing joint doesn't mean both spouses work.
Then why state "Married Couple, Two Earners..." for all incomes $150,000 and above?
HTTT, good point, I have no idea why the chart makes that distinction. I missed that when I responded to your comment (I do remember wondering why the two highest level tax return examples were childless; have the "typical" rich dispensed with having children?)
The IRS does not make any distinction about one or two earners per se, although how people set up their withholding status can affect how much tax is withheld during the year, leading to a nasty surprise when they go to file.
Which hardly matters for this discussion.
Good thing the high wage earners are going to get whacked. At least we can count of the low wage earners investing their new found wealth and create jobs for us. /sarcasm
As if the high wage earners are doing anything anyways right now with their low tax rates. Get a clue.
As a matter of fact, CM, the low wage earners do invest their tax savings in creating jobs for us. They do it by buying things.
As Alan Greenspan said recently, tax cuts for the rich don't stimulate growth.
Want proof? Look at the Bush tax cuts, which resulted in the weakest economic recovery in the post-WWII era.
All we have been doing since Reagan, is financing tax cuts for the wealthy with public debt.
For some reason, conservatives think that is fiscally responsible.
But look at the economic results - where's this great economy, conservatives???
Post a Comment