Senator Inholfe, there's an old farmers tale told to me by an old farmer. As with many things we learn from our forebears, this bears repeating, and I think you'll see how it relates to what you are saying about JFK and Tax cuts.
Once there were two chicken farmers and their farms were side by side. As good neighbors they'd talk with each other and tell each other what was working and how the hens were laying and whatnot.
Times were getting tight as the price of feed was going up but the prices of eggs wasn't and so the two fellows were talking. The first farmer, farmer Jones said to the second farmer, farmer Brown that if things didn't break soon, he was going to have to start getting drastic! Farmer Brown said, "Well, I don't have your problems.
"You see, about two months ago I noticed that when I put out feed for my chickens, they'd knock the tar outta the feed bin and they'd spill so much feed I could just see my profits all over the floor. So I got smart, and I cut my feed with sawdust! I put in 25% sawdust to 75% feed. the chickens spray just as much on the floor, but now itit got the saw dust in it and it don't cost me so much! I get the same egg count and the same egg quality as I ever did!"
Farmer Jones was impressed and he did the same. He got the same result!
A few months went by and farmer Jones stopped in to see Farmer Brown and was shocked to see the state his old friend was in! "What's wrong?" he naturally asked.
"I told you that I cut back on the feed by adding sawdust, and it worked real good, so I increased the percentage to 50% feed and 50% sawdust. It worked great. I got the same eggs, maybe a little bit smaller, but they were costing me less so I was OK. But soon I figured that if I was going to keep up appearences I'd better increase my margins, so I upped the percentage to 75% sawdust and 25% feed. It worked OK but the eggs were smaller and I got less of them. So I upped the percentage to 90% sawdust because that's all the feed I could afford. The chickens died!"
It's that way with tax cuts Senator. We're long past the part where the government waste is to blame. We're at the point where the tax cuts are costing us our future. We're borrowing against the seed corn (to mix the corn metaphore). Another tax cut will only make us weaker!
You haven't figured out by now Democrats will say or do anything to get elected???!!!
We needs some Republican Warriors right now. Do conservatives need to get together and take out ads in the newspapers or are you guys going to step up?
Because Obama is a socialist. He was raised by socialist parents and raised as a good socialist. He will always be a socialist. Which is why he is on this jihad for taxes. He really thinks that all our financial problems will be solved if you just take all the money from the producers in this country and give it to the takers. The fact that this will destroy our economy does not really matter to a socialist like Obama. After all, you didn't build that, the government did, so it has a right to everything you have. I don't know if we're really going to make it to 2016 at this rate.
Somebody needs to stand up and state that it isn't "fair" to any American to insist that the producers pay even more than their "fair" share when they are already paying more than their "fair" share to a government that hasn't put forward one scintilla of effort in spending reduction. Every single department/agency head should have been tasked years ago with elimination of unnecessary and duplicative expenses. It isn't "fair" that the government keeps finding more ways to take.
I remember Sen. Inhofe's bill being discussed but it seems anything which applies to common sense is rejected by the Dems. At this point I am convinced the Dem party is about power and control and they have no interest in we the people other than lording over us and stealing everything from us, from our money to our Constitution. Evil has corrupted and co opted them and their party.
Thank God our God is a God of mercy who saves His people. Amen.
You want to know EXACTLY what's wrong with the repugnantcan party? Follow this conversation...
"Why does it appear that president obama wins the PR campaign on this entire discussion?"
Now watch how the Senator is unprepared to answer the question...
"Well, Gretchen, I represent Oklahoma; he hasn't won it there."
He's focused LOCALLY while liberals are focused GLOBALLY!
"But he's winning it across the country!" - Gretchen
"Well, I know, he's a very persuasive person. That doesn't mean that as a member of the United States Senate that you have to look at public opinion and say, 'well, he's going to win this thing, uh, again, I've got 20 kids and grandkids that are depending on me to reverse this."
Notice how he COMPLIMENTS THE PERSUASIVENESS OF THE PRESIDENT!
" But what do you Republicans need to do to get a better PR message out there to combat, I mean when you look at the math and what you're talking about, it makes a lot of sense, but why is that message not out there?"
"Uh, uh, I don't know, maybe we're not as persuasive as Obama is perhaps..but in this case you know as long as we let people know, you know, that's what I'm doing right now; I'm saying there are other alternatives. This obsession that the president has for tax increases is something we've got to get around, and Republicans are going to turn into Democrats if we don't."
Here's a piece of advice. Whether you own a private enterprise or whether you're a US Senator, this exchange is an example of WHAT NOT TO DO when it comes to trying to sell your ideas. This is yet ANOTHER example that the GOP is utterly CLUELESS on how to garner support for their ideas.
Liberals are LIGHT YEARS ahead of them in the PR department. Until GOP dinosaurs are ousted and true Conservative leadership replaces them, this embarrassing display will continue.
"...You want to know EXACTLY what's wrong with the repugnantcan party?..."
That's an interesting opening sentence stage9; the repugnantcan party - really? I might agree with you on liberals being ahead of conservatives in the PR game, but it's easier for them when they have the vast left-wing MSM touting their positions.
You end your post stating, "Until GOP dinosaurs are ousted and true innovative Conservative thinkers replace them, this embarrassing display will continue."
Thus I have a question for you - who do you believe are real conservative thinkers in the repugnantcan party?
The MSM being on the side of liberals is no excuse for us to lack a PR campaign of our own.
When I put Romney, Bush, McCain, and Boehner up against a West, Santorum, Bachmann or Palin there is a STARK fundamental difference in philosophy and voting record!
The first group would sell their soul to retain political power; the second group is doing all they can to decentralize it. The first will abandon their principles to gain a vote; the second is unapologetically Conservative and vote that way 99% of the time.
A Conservative is one who holds strong convictions on matters of faith, freedom, founders, finance, family and forces.
I like West, Santorum, Bachmann and Palin who chose the Republican Party to express their conservative ideology - they didn't join the "repugnantcan party" as you sadly labeled the GOP. BTW, both of your comments are an example of what you DON'T DO if your concerned about a successful PR campaign.
In addition, Romney, Bush, and McCain, not Boehner, are more moderate on social issues and illegal immigration. You can add many other Republicans to this list like Senators Graham and Collins. Yet, all of them hold conservative views on foreign policy and thus, would get my vote versus any leftist Democrat.
I'm a registered Republican who lives in NYS. However, I only vote for candidates that the Conservative Party in NY endorses (I worked on projects with people like Bill Buckley and Rush Limbaugh). Thus this past election, I didn't vote for two Republicans because they failed to get the conservative endorsement. The reason I remain a registered Republican is so I can vote in local election primaries. The Conservative Party would deny me from participating in these primaries.
Lastly, I would wager we agree on most political issues. I had a nice and long career in publishing. I know a great deal based on my career in marketing and advertising. The last thing you want to do in marketing and advertising is to destroy the BRAND - in this case the Republican Party. And using a term like "repugnantcan" only serves to defile the GOP brand which helps the progressive Democratic machine.
It reminds me of the lyric, "once bitten twice shy" in a song by the same name. Only more like, "oft bitten, forever shy".
They display themselves like folks with some sort of battered person syndrome. They seem to never have a quarter-back either because they never get the ball. They are on permanent defense.
Sometimes it appears they should get the ball by recovered fumble or some-such, but quick as a flash, the media (umpires) reverses the play and gives it back to the democrats, before the offensive players even get off the bench.
So, how do we ever score? The same way salmon swim straight up waterfalls, and hummingbirds hover like helicopters.
Why can't we have more Republicans in the Senate like Inhofe and Paul? The Democrats' definition of "compromise" which is one of their weasel words: agreeing with everything they say. They want no part of compromising, and Reid and the others make that clear; they just want everyone going along with their side.
Rush had the best explanation of what happened. The very arguments that we hoped would move and animate people actually scared them. There are 50 million people on food tamps and your candidate is brag gin about cutting government spending? Who do you think is gonna win?
The issue here is Americans always had a huge distrust for the wealthy.
You hear about the George Soros of the world and you wish we could tax the hell out of them to save us.
The problem is, the Tax code isn't fair. All this talk about Fairness, it's not about fair share, it's about a Fair system.
Taxes ironically should be like Justice, blind. Equal for all.
See the problem is, the Republcians should use their power in the House to reveal to the American people, dollar by dollar, where our money is going and what is it being used to spend.
I'm ok with taxes going to the Government as long as I know it's not being wasted.
If the Republicans were smart, (at least those Tea Party ones.) Demand to see the spending sheet.
I want to see it line by line, and force the issue, why increase taxes when we can SAVE MONEY here.
The 'old democrats' are dead, Senator, and so are the fiscally responsible Republicans.
This is not even about a 'better PR' method, not in the face of institutionalised voter fraud, and especially not in the face of an uneducated generation of voters who will vote for Father Christmas because the are incapable of looking beyond their own personal and immediate needs. You can't beat 'more Free Stuff', not with reason and common sense.
The FreeStuffers will have to learn that where there's nothing, there's no more Free Stuff. It will be painful, but that's how children learn. Usually.
If the republicans had any spine, they'd let the whole thing come crashing down. But they are more interested in staying in the swamp that is Washington DC, and are perfectly happy to betray those who voted for them only a few weeks ago.
But as those voters are letting them get away with this again and again, it's clear that nothing will change, all the public outcries notwithstanding.
Part of me wants to let the democrats crash this ship into a giant iceberg so that those trying to inhale salt water rather than air experience what drowning is like. Apparently the last four years wasn't enough.
The other part of me wants no further suffering by those providing jobs and those looking for jobs. Democrats don't seem to care about jobs. Neither do unions. They're too focused on increasing dependence. Buying deadbeat votes from the formerly productive and perennially lazy bloodsuckers.
The democrat mantra seems to be "hop in the wagon while we slice and dice the rest of the pullers".
Yes, that is the one thing which makes me feel ill when I talk about letting it all come crashing down: the suffering of the innocents, of those who work hard and are trying to make ends meet without government handouts, of the elderly, who are losing their hard-earned savings and who have no way of making up for that loss, of those who are running their small businesses and keep people in work.
They would suffer more than those who'd still get their free stuff until the money is gone - and they are the ones who would not run riot through the shopping malls, smashing everything to pieces.
But then I remember the years from 1974 to 1979 here in the UK, when the Labour Government, with the help and support of the Unions, did run things into the wall. Having presided over rampant inflation which they tried to rein in, there were strikes after strikes, so that the Tories kept asking: who is governing Britain?
That led to the 'Winter of Discontent':
And that led in consequence to the election of Margaret Thatcher. It took a generation before the Unions, with the help of Labour, got back some of the power Mrs Thatcher took away from them.
So perhaps the just will have to suffer with the unjust, to get them to see that radical change has to come before anything will get better. But where's your Margaret Thatcher?
What happened is that marginal rates hit an absurdly low point. Kennedy lowered them to 60% or so. I would agree that 92% is too high and I would support lowering it to 60%.
Even the Laffer Curve has a supposed sweet spot below which lowering rates would actually lower revenues.
Where lies any virtue in advocating the taking of other people's money? No skin off your particular nose right?
How much do you want your own taxes to go up? Let's cut to the chase here.
My taxes can go up. I'm okay with that. In this particular case mine won't go up but my parents' and my brother's will and they're okay with that. They voted straight ticket Dem fully expecting their taxes to go up.
Are you really going to run away like that? Come on! Not to put too fine a point on it but, I make my living based on having much more than a simple "understanding of basic economics." I do fairly well at it as well.
Try to defend your point.
Your last reply shows me you are without understanding of basic economics and also lack common sense."If everyone has more money then everything costs more."
Not even worthy of further discussion.
See? Here's the problem, you say you understand supply and demand and then you go right back to not applying it.
If everyone has more money, then everything costs more. That's why bread isn't a nickle a loaf anymore.
"Waste and Fraud" you are working off of ancient data. Your position is Catch22, When you balance the budget we'll give you more money. We can't balance the budget without more money. What's more, if we cut all spending then we cut all the revenue that spending generates.
Let me show you...
Fisker Automotive is a company that got a loan guarantee from the Department of Energy. They were promised something like $600,000,000. The first tranche was anout $170,000,000 that they used to set up the business, design the car, contract with the builder and create the automobile all within about 18 to 36 months.
Fisker then partnered with Venture capitalists and raised over $1,000,000,000 additional dollars. They Bought a shuttered GM plant in Delaware in which to build the second generation of their auto line.
Here's the thing... Practically all of the money that Fisker spends money on is payroll. They have to pay the engineers who design the car and the management to create the framework of the corporation. These people are well paid and they have to pay income taxes on their earnings. The average actual tax rate they pay based on their gross income is around 16%. So let's say that Fisker paid out half of the $1.2 B in cash they had; $600,000,000 @ 16%= $96,000,000 in collected income taxes... For having lent them $170,000,000 which they are paying 10% interest on, so the government got $17,000,000 times three in interest payments $51,000,000 (we're up to $147MM).
Fisker missed a deadline. Their cars weren't for sale by 'x' date because there was a recall on the battery they were using (also brand new technology from A123) and because the starting cars were being built by a contract manufacturer in Finland and the parts they needed were delayed by the volcano in Europe that brought airtravel to the ground.
Because "some people" were making such noises about the DOE's loans to Solyndra. The DOE declined to give Fisker the second tranche of the loans because they were weeks behind schedule. Compare that to the defense department contracts where Boeing is decades behind schedule and the weapon system is billions over budget. Oh, and it's a weapons system that we will never use too!
Fisker is still going, It raised more capital in the private market and it is selling the Fisker Karma all over the USA and is opening markets in China Abu Dhabi and Europe.
They'll pay off the loan and the US Treasury will have made twice the money they invested plus the jobs going forward. Can you tell me how that is a bad use of Government monies?
You are talking to someone who has been an independent contractor and whose husband currently owns a small business so I am more than familiar with supply and demand.
Taxes do matter because what people take home matters. The more they have, the more they spend, the more businesses like yours prosper, the more your family has and you are able to do and save. This is basic economics.
When the govt learns how to balance a budget and cut spending then we can talk about taxes but until they do what they are supposed to do they do not deserve a dime more from anyone.There is so much waste and fraud, pork barrel spending and grants for silly and inane projects it is ludicrous to give them anymore than what they already have.
THE PROBLEM IS NOT REVENUE BUT SPENDING!
I'm older now. I have a family of my own. I am a small business owner and I agree with Danny Kelly.
Here's the first thing that you need to know about taxes, put a hat on because your head is about to explode. THEY DON'T MATTER TO YOU! What you pay in Federal and State income taxes are irrelavent to your lifestyle.
If the tax rate went to 0% tomorrow your lifestyle wouldn't change one bit. Why? because of a little law known as Supply and Demand. When your income tax rates drop, they drop for all people in your like circumstance and so all of those people have more money in their hands, and they do what with it? They spend it! That can of beans you buy, the fancy ones, well they're priced at $2.27 per can because when the price goes to $2.28 les people buy them and so they sit there. When they go to $2.25 they fly off the shelf and they're never in stock. That's how supply and demand works.
Now, at $2.27 that means that you are trading 18.75 minutes of pre tax labor for that can of beans (20.7 minutes after tax and SSI). You're working at ABC factory for minimum wage and instead of them paying you in beans they give you paper "money" and you trade that paper for beans. ABC also pays 3,000 other employees that same money. Now if all of a sudden every person in the factory had more money, the price of those beans would go up to $2.50. Because that is what the market would bear.
That'll do for now.
Thank you for your thoughtful and civil response.
I see your point but still mostly disagree with you. I know it's not just the Democrats... I blame Republicans too for this mess. I still contend that spending is by far the biggest problem with Washingon. I'd also like tax reform (I'm a Fair Tax zealot).
Frankly, I'd like to see Washington get back to the U.S. Constitution and I strongly adhere to Tea Party principles. I offer that as an insight into what I'd say if I had more time. You seem well-read, so I'm fairly sure you understand what I mean.
Like you I was raised in a Democrat household but I am older and wiser now. Talk to me in a few years when you're married and have a family of your own and the govt is confiscating too much of your hard earned money.
In other words, ease ourselves into complete collapse?
What's idiotic is the entire left. It's idiotic NOT to balance our budget, unless of course your goal is collapse, which is true of your side and your straight ticket voting family's side who don't know enough to come in out of the "reign".
There is no such thing as a democrat party any more. what you all are voting for is socialism, who's goal is communism. It's marching as fast as it can down the road to serf-dumb. If you can't see that, you might see an optometrist, a psychiatrist, or a non-revisionist history book or two.
The democrat progressive party is comprised of fools. It just is. They are also part of lying and cheating to "win" elections. Scum, from every angle.
Danny, for the sake of argument, if the government is successful in raising taxes only on the rich, I have a few questions:
1. Do you really think they will spend it wisely to reduce the debt, or do you think they're just going to keep on spending recklessly and continuing to rack up debt by buying votes?
2. Do you really think that it will have any positive impact on the lives of the poor? Will it truly change their lives?
3. Do you have any doubt that there will be a gradual "creep" of what is considered "rich"? For example, the AMT was created to tax the "rich". Today, millions of middle class people are facing the AMT. As we print $40 billion a month with QE3, don't you think that is going to happen?
The difference between my quote and your quote is that my quote is real.
The top 10% of income earners also control 80% of the nation's wealth and less than 5% of its personal debt.
The math actually works out pretty well.
Also with respect - I think that one of the more severe problems our nation is confronting is the notion in the conservative movement that the Democrats are going to "destroy the nation" - and worse, that this is somehow their goal.
I've actually been reading here for a while because it offers me an opportunity to contact people with views that I would be otherwise cut off from. And while I've read much of the anti-tax rhetoric on this site, I can't say that I agree with it all. I would agree that taxation - like all things - must be in moderation, but the notion that it should be forever on a one-way downward spiral to me is crazy. Washington might have a spending problem, but we can't just cut our way out of this problem without seriously hurting a lot of people who rely on programs to maintain their lifestyles. And I'm not talking about the non-working poor - federal spending on whom is relatively insignificant (5% of the budget or so) - I'm talking about the elderly. A 4% increase on the marginal tax rate of the top 1% of earners is not going to bring about the financial apocalypse - we seemed to be doing alright under Bill Clinton.
We all need to sit down and realize that we both have our own understanding of the country's best interests at heart and try and suss out a way forward where nobody gets everything they want but everybody gets something. That's how we got the bicameral legislature, after all - and reviews of that have been mostly positive.
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
So much for class warfare.
Funny how you manage to put words in my mouth.
I did not say I would support RAISING the tax rates to 60% now - and I wouldn't. I said that at the time that Kennedy took office the top tax rates were 92% and he lowered them to 60% and that, were I participating in politics at that time, I would have supported that change as a means of spurring on the economy. This does not mean that I believe that raising the top tax rate to 60% now is a good idea. I also, however, don't think that letting that rate go from 35%, where it is now, to 39%, where it was under Clinton, is suddenly going to bring about the financial apocalypse.. And I wouldn't mind letting nearly all of the Bush Tax Cuts - including the one for my tax bracket - expire either.
Also, just because I didn't discuss spending cuts doesn't mean that I don't think that they have their place; I just think that we need to be realistic about what gets cut. Nixing PP or the NEA, for example, aside from being bad ideas, would do absolutely nothing. At the end of the day, most of the spending comes from medicare and defense; some cuts have already been made to medicare, and I think now that it's time we look at the defense budget - our unspoken entitlement - like grown ups. We spend more on defense than the other top 10 or so nations combined - and we're now actually spending money on things that the military itself says that it doesn't want. We could have a military that's just as effective for less money if we were only smarter about how we invested.
We're also in a recession - which means we're going to run deficits, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. The notion that we should balance the budget RIGHT NOW is kind of idiotic. We should be more focused on making sure that our deficit spending is prioritized correctly to help bring this country out of its slump.
Did you happen to notice the referendums on the ballot in California? The referendum to raise taxes only on the "rich" was approved. The referendum to raise taxes on everyone was, drumroll please ..................... defeated.
The top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% pay virtually zero. I wonder what percent of the bottom 50% of the income earners voted for Obama? And the media went ape-crap when Romney pointed this out. I think it hit too close to home.
Right, I caught that. I was focusing on you since you made the comment. Raising the rate to 60% would almost double my Fed "contribution" also known as sequester or usurpation of the fruits of my labor, whether that labor is from my hands or from my brain. If you are fine with a few percentage point raise, that still raises obvious questions.
Since you said absolutely nothing about the spending, your approach is not "balanced" is it? Also you ignore the "fairness" part of the whole thing. Those that pay the lion's share of all taxes should be the last ones portrayed as those not paying their "fair" share. They pay not only their fair share but the share of tens of millions of others who pay zero.
I hope you teach your kids, present or future, to be more responsible with their money, than you'd have your government be responsible with my, your, and their money.
Thanks for responding. At least you recognize Laffer's Curve. Where that sweet spot is, I would like to know. I'd bet a bag of bagels it isn't 60%.
I believe that I said it was cool with me if my taxes went up a few percentage points. I also believe that I cited people that are close to me who will actually experience their taxes going up, which will affect them directly and, to a lesser extent, me.
More importantly, those people I've cited voted for their own tax increases.
Danny, with respect... supporting the Democrats and their plans will simply lead to the destruction of this nation. I have a hard time understanding why an "American" would support that.
You seem to be new here. There have been many excellent postings (go back a bit and find them) about why raising taxes on anyone is an awful and historically flawed approach to raising revenue and bloating the Government. Washington has a spending problem... that's the problem. Raising taxes does relatively nothing to chip away at the deficit or cure the root problem.
If you want to buy the propaganda that Obama and his ilk are spewing, then go ahead and freely pay more in taxes - the IRS will laugh all the way to the bank. If we can get enough "like-minded" patriots" to do the same thing, we might actually change the ravenous attack on others who are already paying more than their "fair share".
No skin off your nose. Ooohweee, what a personal philanthropist you are. All you have to do is advocate taking from others. That takes less effort, and less sacrifice than watching Rachel Maddow while nodding.
The Prosecution rests.
You actually Want to pay more to the federal government than you retain to pay your own expenses? Not even thinking about state and local taxes, are you?You must vote straight ticket D.
No, he didn't say squat about his own taxes. He might be one of those "brave" souls who himself pays ZERO, but who nevertheless thinks it "fair" to take well over half of that income others have generated. I'm looking forward to his response from my question.