"Remember the good old days, when the only thing the Republicans tried to divide the country over was a blow job?"

But Al, it was from a (gasp, choke, horror) woman! If Clinton has just done what Republicans did and had his affairs with a young man on his staff ... Why, there would have been no problem.

But he added a tax to cigarettes so he didn't really cut taxes Mike and Jodi. Geez, don't you two read?*

*But I was thinking about this argument (which I believe someone made in this thread awhile back), the tax on cigarettes is completely voluntary, so if you don't want to pay it, you don't. You just quit smoking. I did.

In every meaningful way, he cut taxes. I wonder if all the teabaggers will give back all of the extra return they get this year?

I wonder how many of them realize that the reason most  people who get back more than they paid in, do so because of the EIC, and if they realize that it's a Republican idea? It was originally enacted in 1975 under Ford, was expanded greatly under Reagan in 1986 and then again in 1990, 1993, and 2001. All expansions, except one, were done by Repubs. So they bitch that 47% don't pay income taxes, but don't even know their party is the one that did it. Priceless!

"Those Starbucks-sweeping, arugula-washing, Favo-fueling laundromat liberals and their government-leeching scheme to not pay federal income taxes! Of course they do most likely pay payroll taxes, state, local, sales and excise taxes, but the important thing is knowing that doesn't make you as mad, does it?"-Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show"

HERE'S an article I posted over on Facebook, but has relevance here.

Are the Teabaggers really just a dupe of Republicans?

When we consider the booming 1990s economy, there was more in play there than just marginal tax rates.

Clearly the peace dividend, the internet explosion and welfare reform all played a signficant part in the high flying economy. Also, a nitpick but a significant nit to pick, there was no budget surplus, but rather a projected budget surplus to be realized down the road (based on the assumption that the dot com bubble would never burst and we could feast off the peace dividend forever).

Thus, there are no grounds to support the argument that we can raise taxes and make the economy roar. Rather, as history has proven in the 1920s, the 1960s and the 1980s, the inverse is true.

Moreover, in an era where it is easier than ever for the capital class to avoid payment of taxes through international incorporation and offshore tax shelters, higher marginal rates under a progressive rate tax system only serve to stimulate further capital flight. Ergo, we are likely to see an American version of the Canadian Goods and Services Tax (or a European Value Added Tax) which is harder for the bulk of the taxpaying public to avoid, as the government is running out of new tax frontiers.

I support the least of us, those that need it the most. The rich don't
need help.

Clearly the peace dividend, the internet explosion and welfare reform all played a signficant part in the high flying economy.

*****************

I can see how the internet explosion helped the economy, but how do you figure that the "peace dividend" ( A term coined by Dick Cheney, and not Bill Clinton, by the way.) did?

I even have to question how much welfare reform helped. I can see that getting people to work would have a boost to the economy, but how significant would it be? Those people went from spending government money to, more often than not, minimum wage jobs that would not have given them a significantly greater amount of money. So the actual boost to the economy would have been very little to nonexistent. They still spent the money they had on the same things, they just got it from a different place.

The downsizing of the military (Again, started under the first Bush and then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, and not Bill Clinton.) reduced military jobs, but would have pushed a great number of people into the private sector. How exactly did that boost the economy? They still spent the same money, they just got it from a different place. And in my case I was making less after leaving the military, than I was when I was in. I have to assume that it was the same for many people who got out at that time.

Here's an interesting chart and article that addresses the rise of deficit spending.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-12-deficit_N .htm?csp=34

Decades of us v them propaganda has paid off in ranting angry mobs
who feel like they're footing the bill for lazy poor people (and in the
propaganda, they're usually not white) - when in reality, we're paying
into an insurance fund that we all have access to, tho we hope we'll
never have to use it.

The decades of propaganda has worked, so it's time for those of us
on the other side to jump start our own propaganda.

Jacob Riis' "How the Other Half Lives" should be required reading in
schools. We need a stark reminder of how things were before these
safety nets were put into place. We need to remember the "good old
days" when people were working 3 jobs, 7 days a week and still
starving to death in the streets.

Don't believe for one hot second the the rich have your best interests
in mind. You are just worthless meat to them.

William,

I believe the "peace dividend" term was popularized by George Bush Sr. and Maggie Thatcher in the wake of the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the USSR. Of course, it had a long history before that.

The benefit of a peace dividend is that it allows resources to be reallocated to different parts of the economy. I'm a firm believer in the military and national security, but investments in that sector generally do not create wealth. Protect wealth, most certainly, and there are notable spin-offs from military research (most recent satellite navigation and the internet), but such spinoffs are more exceptions and by-products. At the very least, reductions in military spending due to easing international tensions allow for reductions in the deficit. Or those dollars can be spent on improvements to the infrastructure that would benefit the GNP / GDP. (It should be noted the interstate highway system, for example, was a military project but has lead to tremendous economic spinoffs and bettered the common wealth.)

As for the Workforce Investment Act, I cannot speak for the rest of the country, but in Shasta County it did not move people off the welfare rolls and into minimum wage jobs. There were serious retraining efforts, job skills development and placement services. There was a lot of good work done and much success. I know firsthand, having worked for the local community employment center as a labour analysis.

The key benefit of welfare reform is helping people become tax generators versus tax recipients. I'll use a purposefully simplified example to illustrate the point.

Let's assume we have an able-bodied individual who can earn the equivalent of $10 per hour on whatever social assistance program we want to use. Thus, that person has a disincentive to take an job paying less than $10 an hour (because they make that on social assistance) and a marginal disincentive for taking a job paying between, say, $10 to $15 per hour because of the limited financial benefit personally gained in return for the labour involved. If this person does not have $15 an hour and up skills, we've effective frozen them out of the labour pool.

So, what if we start of program that says to qualify for social assistance a recipient needs to provide, say, 10 hours of community service or volunteer work per week. By doing so, that person learns skills, makes contacts, contributes back to society and begins to put themselves into a position where they might be able to re-enter the workforce in time.

Or, what if we start a program where that person gets a $10 a hour job, and we supplement the wage at $15 per hour? We've got that person back into the labour pool, they are developing skills and experience, contributing to the economy and we've cut the cost of their social assistance in half, lessening the cost to government.

Or, what if we start a program that in return for social assistance that person has to undergo government-paid job training and skills development so they can qualify for a $20 a hour job. For a short-term investment we got someone contributing to the economy and completely eliminated their social assistance, lessening the cost to government.

Essentially, the above was the Workforce Investment Act, in microcosm. It wasn't, to paraphrase your note, people getting their spending money from a different source. Rather, in each case you had increased productivity -- services getting delivered, things getting made -- that contributes to the betterment of the overall economy and society.

By the way, William, I'd like to point out that in my original message I didn't frame the discussion as "Republican vs. Democrat" as you seem to have in your reply. I think that kind of Red/Blue thinking gets things off track. I'm not trying to make partisan points for either side but just deal in terms of simple economics. Let's leave the parties and the political personalities out of it and instead look at the economic factors and formula.