Bush's tax cuts don’t work; rich pay record high, below the median pay record low!

Looks like this is flying over people's heads.

I'll toss out a clue.

McCain’s head games on taxes - Ari Melber - Politico.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11917.html)

Ha ha.
<Homer Simpson>I get jokes</Homer Simpson>

I am usually smarter than that. Damn.

Pretty Damning! I guess the guy did not read the WSJ article which was posted here or did very much reserch on the topic because the facts show that the rich are paying even more taxes after the Bush tax cut. I'm not sure how you find that damning unless you go with an article based on opinion or one from the WSJ which used fact to form its article.

Isn't that the democratic motto? ;)

This article looks like it came out of the WSJ Editorial board rather than the WSJ. There's a huge difference. The editorial portion is pure shit, not journalism, and it's been that way for decades. The actual WSJ is high quality.

I say the article looks like editorial because it says editorial at the bottom and because it refers extensively to the voodoo economics known as supply side. Bob Bartley, the most famous chief editor of the WSJ editorial, was a major advocate of supply side (along w/ Jude Wanniski). Believe it or not supply side has never been an economics based theory. Bartley and Wanniski said tax cuts for the rich, beyond JFK's in the early sixties, would yield so much in tax revenue that America would see a budget surplus. Economic studies have shown GDP would have to grow by 10 to 12 percent (annually) to achieve surplus alongside Reagan's tax cuts. Any idiot who pays even the least bit of attention to public policy knows that each time supply side tax cuts have been implemented the budget collapses into deficit. When Reagan took office the US gov owed about $1 trillion. Reagan's supply side policies added over $3 trillion. The two Bushes have added most of the other $6 trillion to take our current national debt to $10 trillion. The only brief reprieve from massive budget deficits came from the economic team of the 1990's (Summers, Rubin, Sperling) - not really Bill Clinton.

As to the merits of the article, there is no there there. All good macroeconomics is founded in microeconomics, and to get at the micro picture you've got to ask what percentage of household income is going to the federal government. Sadly, the percentage of household income among the working poor (blue collar, service sector, etc) has climbed dramatically over the last 3 decades to have nearly doubled. Think about out social security was saved in the 80's. The tax was doubled for W-2'd workers. If you're wondering how this group is somehow paying a lesser portion of income taxes, it's because they're earning significantly less real income than 30 years ago. The real income, when adjusted for inflation, has fallen for blue collar and service sector workers. Meanwhile, the percentage of household income taken away from the top decile in the form of taxes is lower than at any other time since WWII (when the modern tax system was implemented). Again, if it seems curious that this group is now paying a larger percentage of income taxes, all you have to look at is their enormous gain in real income. At the micro level, where it really counts, the poor are paying more than ever before (percentage of household income) and the rich are paying less than any time since WWII (percentage of household income).

Lastly, the WSJ editorial here is pure bullshit for an entirely different reason. Notice it talked about income taxes and not payroll taxes. Most families (4 out of 5) live w/ the payroll tax, levied at 15.3%, as their primary tax. The income tax only accounts for about 10% of what the median family pays in total tax. In simple terms, the editorial completely ignores the tax paid by the vast majority of American households. This is a slick little way of distorting the reality, but it's not a new trick by any means. The reason we can say that the bottom 50% of workers paid just 2.9% of the income tax is because they don't make enough to pay much in income tax, but you can be quite sure that they're not escaping the payroll tax which is counted separately.

This article looks like it came out of the WSJ Editorial board rather than the WSJ. There's a huge difference. The editorial portion is pure shit, not journalism, and it's been that way for decades. The actual WSJ is high quality.

I say the article looks like editorial because it says editorial at the bottom and because it refers extensively to the voodoo economics known as supply side. Bob Bartley, the most famous chief editor of the WSJ editorial, was a major advocate of supply side (along w/ Jude Wanniski). Believe it or not supply side has never been an economics based theory. Bartley and Wanniski said tax cuts for the rich, beyond JFK's in the early sixties, would yield so much in tax revenue that America would see a budget surplus. Economic studies have shown GDP would have to grow by 10 to 12 percent (annually) to achieve surplus alongside Reagan's tax cuts. Any idiot who pays even the least bit of attention to public policy knows that each time supply side tax cuts have been implemented the budget collapses into deficit. When Reagan took office the US gov owed about $1 trillion. Reagan's supply side policies added over $3 trillion. The two Bushes have added most of the other $6 trillion to take our current national debt to $10 trillion. The only brief reprieve from massive budget deficits came from the economic team of the 1990's (Summers, Rubin, Sperling) - not really Bill Clinton.

As to the merits of the article, there is no there there. All good macroeconomics is founded in microeconomics, and to get at the micro picture you've got to ask what percentage of household income is going to the federal government. Sadly, the percentage of household income among the working poor (blue collar, service sector, etc) has climbed dramatically over the last 3 decades to have nearly doubled. Think about out social security was saved in the 80's. The tax was doubled for W-2'd workers. If you're wondering how this group is somehow paying a lesser portion of income taxes, it's because they're earning significantly less real income than 30 years ago. The real income, when adjusted for inflation, has fallen for blue collar and service sector workers. Meanwhile, the percentage of household income taken away from the top decile in the form of taxes is lower than at any other time since WWII (when the modern tax system was implemented). Again, if it seems curious that this group is now paying a larger percentage of income taxes, all you have to look at is their enormous gain in real income. At the micro level, where it really counts, the poor are paying more than ever before (percentage of household income) and the rich are paying less than any time since WWII (percentage of household income).

Lastly, the WSJ editorial here is pure bullshit for an entirely different reason. Notice it talked about income taxes and not payroll taxes. Most families (4 out of 5) live w/ the payroll tax, levied at 15.3%, as their primary tax. The income tax only accounts for about 10% of what the median family pays in total tax. In simple terms, the editorial completely ignores the tax paid by the vast majority of American households. This is a slick little way of distorting the reality, but it's not a new trick by any means. The reason we can say that the bottom 50% of workers paid just 2.9% of the income tax is because they don't make enough to pay much in income tax, but you can be quite sure that they're not escaping the payroll tax which is counted separately.

Don't agree

When Reagan took office the US gov owed about $1 trillion. Reagan's supply side policies added over $3 trillion. The two Bushes have added most of the other $6 trillion to take our current national debt to $10 trillion. The only brief reprieve from massive budget deficits came from the economic team of the 1990's (Summers, Rubin, Sperling) - not really Bill Clinton.

Deficits are based off what comes in and what is spent and you seem to leave those numbers out. With what your saying is that with the Regan and Bush tax cuts revenue to the IRS went down which is totaly not true. The proplem is that Regan went along with Congress way too much and the Dems (with the help of Regan) spent more than the goverment was taking in and the same with Bush (with the help from both parties).

Pretty Damning! I guess the guy did not read the WSJ article which was posted here or did very much reserch on the topic because the facts show that the rich are paying even more taxes after the Bush tax cut. I'm not sure how you find that damning unless you go with an article based on opinion or one from the WSJ which used fact to form its article.

When I say it's pretty damning, I'm referring to the repeated comments coming from McCain insinuating that the current economic hardships facing many American families are "just in their head." Doesn't say a lot about someone who is claiming to fix issues he doesn't seem to believe truly exist. To me, that kind of double talk is damning.

As for tax percentages and breakouts among varying income levels, that's not my area of expertise and I can't speak intelligently on it, so I won't try.

When I say it's pretty damning, I'm referring to the repeated comments coming from McCain insinuating that the current economic hardships facing many American families are "just in their head." Doesn't say a lot about someone who is claiming to fix issues he doesn't seem to believe truly exist. To me, that kind of double talk is damning.

As for tax percentages and breakouts among varying income levels, that's not my area of expertise and I can't speak intelligently on it, so I won't try.
So you don't think if the news running stories over and over again saying that the economy is going south that it does not any affect on how people feel. Its an election year and the media by their own poll vote something like 80 some percent democratic so I feel their reporting will be slanted. That goes both ways but the dems have the upper hand with the media. Media Bias Basics (http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp)

So you don't think if the news running stories over and over again saying that the economy is going south that it does not any affect on how people feel. Its an election year and the media by their own poll vote something like 80 some percent democratic so I feel their reporting will be slanted. That goes both ways but the dems have the upper hand with the media. Media Bias Basics (http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp)

To answer the bolded question, yes, I do agree that the barrage of negativity has an effect on the public's psyche. I do not believe, however, that the current downturn in the economy is a figment of our collective imagination. I don't think that the price of groceries has gone up dramatically, I know it. I don't guess that people are spending less, I see it when I'm out at a restaurant or shopping. I most definitely do not pretend that energy costs are affecting my monthly budget, I feel it.

McCain's comments bother me because they show he doesn't know/see/feel the same economic issues as the vast majority of the American populace. If he doesn't even believe these issues to exist, how can we realistically expect him to solve them?

To your final point regarding media bias, you'll get no argument from me. One thing that I learn as I get older is that there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. Every reported "fact," whether it be from Fox, CNN or any of the other outlets has to be viewed with a jaundiced eye. But to counter the point I believe you are making, CNN talking about the sky falling affects me to the same magnitude as Fox News beating me about the face and neck with right wing "patriotic" propaganda. It is not always easy, but any reasonably intelligent person attempts to look through to the core facts, as obscured by partisan rhetoric as they may be. To suggest that this country has simply "talked" itself into a recession is pretty hard to believe.

To answer the bolded question, yes, I do agree that the barrage of negativity has an effect on the public's psyche. I do not believe, however, that the current downturn in the economy is a figment of our collective imagination. I don't think that the price of groceries has gone up dramatically, I know it. I don't guess that people are spending less, I see it when I'm out at a restaurant or shopping. I most definitely do not pretend that energy costs are affecting my monthly budget, I feel it.

McCain's comments bother me because they show he doesn't know/see/feel the same economic issues as the vast majority of the American populace. If he doesn't even believe these issues to exist, how can we realistically expect him to solve them?

To your final point regarding media bias, you'll get no argument from me. One thing that I learn as I get older is that there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. Every reported "fact," whether it be from Fox, CNN or any of the other outlets has to be viewed with a jaundiced eye. But to counter the point I believe you are making, CNN talking about the sky falling affects me to the same magnitude as Fox News beating me about the face and neck with right wing "patriotic" propaganda. It is not always easy, but any reasonably intelligent person attempts to look through to the core facts, as obscured by partisan rhetoric as they may be. To suggest that this country has simply "talked" itself into a recession is pretty hard to believe.

Great points Mr. Burgundy.

oh god. so we aren't really in a recession? im just dreaming that gas prices, food prices, and every other thing under the sun prices are rising? and first down, i love your look on politics. if its someone you like, or have voted for, in your eyes things that go south is never their fault. it always congress, or Bill Clinton's fault. and if something good comes out of someone you don't like, you do everything you can to deflect the praise. your loyalty is commendable