News-Record.com

The Republicans used to complain about Democrats being "tax and spend" liberals. Sure sounded bad. But the Democrats were nowhere near as bad for this country as the "spend and don't tax" Neo-cons. At this point, the only consolation I see is that when the economy collapses into a black hole of debt, I'll be able to say "don't blame me... I voted for people who wanted balanced budgets!"

So, basically you are for raising taxes. That is what it sounds like to me. "The Democrats were nowhere near as bad for this country"? Oh, Please. Bush's father and Clinton taxed us to death and then wondered why the economy took a big turn south after years of heavy taxation. The Bush tax cuts were a huge reason the economy did as well as it did after September 11th and an economic depression caused by years of heavy taxation.

I think we agree on one thing. The democrats spent money like it was not theirs because it wasn't, it was ours. The republicans are now doing the same thing, but I guarantee that a lot of the money being spent is for programs for constituents of democrat politicians too.

Our federal government is out of control. And we don't need to make that into a party issue.

I don't pretend to be an economist. Not my cup of tea. But I know enough not to try to blame one party or another for the mess we're in.

I have to take exception with another bigmouths final statement. The fact that you are not an economist is not surprising however your lack of knowledge concerning basic math is. When Bush took office we had a huge budget surplus now we are trillions of dollar in debt. Numbers don't lie. I'm sure you can find a math class at one of our fine local colleges to help you through the difficult theories related to positive and negative numbers.

I most certainly do blame one party for their fiscal irresponsibility. The Demopublicans are ruining our economy. I suggest all fiscal conservatives jump ship and support the real party of fiscal responsibility: the Libertarian Party.

I agree that spending is out of control, but to blame it solely on Republicans is insane. The problem Bush has is that he started his first term trying to reach out to Democrats. One way he did that is to initiate new social programs like the prescription drug plan, no child left behind (which Ted Kennedy helped with), and others. His intent was to try to accomodate Democrats with the social programs they thirst for and cannot live without and beat them at their own game.

The problem is no matter how much money he threw at these programs, it is never enough for Democrats, they always want more, especially if the program is the idea of a Republican. For Democrats, the solution to everything is to spend more. Now if Bush trys to reduce spending increases for programs (which Democrats call "cutting" programs)we hear all the whining about starving the children and old people eating dog food.

As for tax cuts for the wealthiest, Mr. Boyles, try something new other than this hackneyed, class warfare chapter from the Democratic playbook. News flash: All taxpayers got a tax cut. The wealthiest got more of a cut because they pay more taxes!! This would be like one guy buying a $40,000 car with a $4000 rebate, another buying a $20,000 car with a $2000 rebate. In the liberal viewpoint, it would not be fair that the first guy got a larger rebate!!

Agreed, both parties spend way too much. Many of us (myself not included) bring this upon ourselves, as we expect the government to take care of our every need. I would like the government to protect the country, build roads/infrastructure, run essential services, assist the least of us who cannot take care of themselves, and that's it. Rusty may have a point.

Sorry Dan, but the tax cuts don't follow your simplistic model. The reality is that these tax cuts are not proportional, particularly when numerous loopholes are factored in. Higher income earners receive a higher proportion (by percentage, not gross dollars) of tax reductions than lower income earners.

In reality, tax policy is becoming less progressive. This has been a trend across multiple administrations of both parties, but Bush has pursued it with unprecedented zeal. Dan, you're welcome to advocate regressive taxation, but you should understand the consequences. As the tax burden slides down the income ladder, economic mobility declines and families have less money in an environment that demands more of them. Forget the idea of "trickle down" economics benefitting them, because that's a fairy tale that all but the most ideological economists have discredited.

It's not about class warfare, it's about sound economic policy. About 9/10s of the noise that comes out of Washington with regard to taxes is unworkable. Ask many of the newly installed Republican governors who are Beltway transplants. In DC, they bought and sold Bush's tax cut fairy tale. Now that they see the consequences of those cuts, they're singing a different tune.

It's generous of you not to demand too much of the government. If you were king I'm sure it would work just the way you like. The reality (again, that troublesome word) is that most people have reasonable expectations of the government. Contrary to stereotypes, there is a proportionally small number of citizens who do not want to work and who want the government to take responsibility for them (perhaps that would include the entire red state of Georgia, which consumes 2.5X more of our federal tax contributions than bad old blue Massachussetts). However, that reasonable majority doesn't agree on the specifics. They have different economic interests, geographic interests, social interests, and the like. And as long as they have a say, more will be spent than you like and the requirement for taxes to fund their expectations will remain.

From the Yahoo! business page:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050305/wall_street_2.html

"Stocks at 3 1/2 Year High"

And the poverty rate is up, personal bankruptcies are up, and median income is stagnant. Each of those is a more reliable indicator of economic health than stock values. What's your point, Bobby?

Try looking at some news, no name.
Unemployment is down, personal income is up, the economy is growing faster than ever. Everything is much, much better than a few years ago, we're on a real economic upswing.
Try looking at some facts.

No sale, Bobby. Unemployment is down by what measure? Percentage, numbers employed? Relative to what? Last month, last year, 10 years ago?

Personal income is up? No, Bobby, median income is flat. Average income (which you are undoubtedly using) is skewed by massive increases among the top 1% of income earners.

Everything is much, much better? Is that a verifiable fact, or your opinion?

Try using some facts. Or at the very least, share specific facts that support your rose colored view.

If you want to bury your head in the sand, no name, you're free to do so, but don't expect us to believe you.
Read the above link and others in the financial section and you'll see that I'm right and you are wrong.
Our economy is on the biggest upswing in years, and you liberal hate mongers just can't stomach that, can you? You just can't accept that all of your left wing blather is wrong, and the conservatives are saving our country from mean spirited windbags like you.

Go get 'em Bobby. No matter how much good news comes out, the libs will always try to find something negative, it's their nature. New job creation continues strongly, but libs will tell you they are not the right kind of jobs. Even manufacturing jobs increased, but that will be ignored.

"As the tax burden slides down the income ladder, economic mobility declines and families have less money in an environment that demands more of them". Quote by no name.

My point, no name, is that everyone pays too much in taxes and they should not be raised at the drop of a hat by politicians like Easley. Please try and tell me with a straight face that his tax increases on cigs, booze, movies, cable, satellite, and the continued higher sales tax do not harm lesser income earners more than high income. Regressive you say?

Not sure what you do for a living no name, but I am self employed. A lot of people have their taxes conveniently with held from their paychecks (so they don't realize or care how much they pay) and grumble about paying $100/month for their employer subsidized, tax free health insurance. I shell out $550/month for health insurance which is only 40% deductible. I also send the federal and state governments hand written checks each quarter for significant sums of cash. If everyone had to hand write a check each quarter, there would be an uprising of the masses, except from die hard lefties who want us taxed more.

Nice response, Bobby. Respond to facts with name calling. It speaks volumes about your lack of credibility.

And Dan, I'm not being negative. I'm offering observations about real economic trends. "Negative" is your and Bobby's incorrect interpretation.

Sheesh, and *I'm* the hate monger?