Center for American Progress - The Bush Tax Increase

And people call Americans "Flag Wavers".

 

Oh its not flag waving in the traditional sense. Theres more to it than just health care... lax enviro rules enforcement... easy access to energy and ressources... Im not proud of the fact we might become a #1 dumping ground for any kind of biz no matter how noxious or abusive...

I am sorta flag waving about health care tho... The costs savings of national health care when done right are enormous.

 

Any time you want to back your "Bush Tax Hike" assertion with actual data, I'll be waiting.

 

As I said, your "forumula" is mathematically flawed from the onset. In other words:

If I get a 10% decrease in my salary, and my phone bill goes UP by 5% at the same time, this doesn't mean I have a 15% budget shortfall. (10+5 != 15). You did not look at some consistent basis like the "percentage of GDP", and you did not use absloute numbers.

Second, even using your flawed forumula, you did not use the correct data. You used budget projections through Oct 1, 2004, but only used Debt info as of "today" (Feb, 2004).

Of course I don't accept it as "valid." It couldn't be further from it.

 

My taxes are lower.

I dont pay state income tax. My sales tax is 7%.


tough life, I am bringing home more money now than before....

If local/state governments are done right, things can be fine. Jacksonville raised over 2 BILLION dollars for road work by issuing a 1/2% percent sales tax increase to pay for new roads, arena, ballpark, libraries, etc...

The State Government is funding more roads being built here. All of this without FEDERAL help.


This nation is a Republic. Each state has its own rights and bills to pay. Floridians shouldnt have to pay for people from West Virginia to live because mining operations have shut down.

 

Sorry. Not so. Fed's help alot. In fact Florida gets about $800 million per year in Federal funds for transportation needs (highways, bridges, interstate maintenance, ect...)

 

Agreed, as do all states. It's just not true that states are these completely autonomous principalities, nor could they ever be in this day and age.

 

Natoma, YOU ARE NOT HEARING ME.

Your MATH IS NOT RIGHT. The point I'm pushing I only RECENTLY brought up, and it's NOT THE SAME as thing you are ranting on now...do you really want me to spell it out for you further?

Or do you just want to grab some absolute numbers like I asked.

Oh, so NOW you are back-tracking on using bush's "full term" and just using 2003 instead? Har-de-har.

Again, it's irrelecvant because your BASIC MATH IS NOT RIGHT.

Sigh:

National Debt increases 22%.
Spending increases 26%
Fed tax receipts decline 12%.

WHERE DOES your 16% GAP NUMBER COME FROM? It's erroneously arrived at using INVALID MATH. Need an illustration? Let's use some absolute numbers (I'll just make them up) to illustrate you can't just ADD AND SUBTRACT PERCENTAGES THAT AREN'T OF THE SAME BASIS,

National Debt: Rises from 5.7 to 7 Trillion (22% increase)
Spending: Increases from $1000 to $1260 (That's right, one thousand dollars) A 26% INCREASE
Fed tax receipts decline: $800 to $714 (12% decrease)

Get the point Natoma? There is actually about a full 7-5.7 = 1.3 trillion (22%) increase in the debt that is whollly UNACCOUNTED FOR.

Using Natoma's New MATH though, you would magically figure that the debt is actually some 16% (26%+12%-22%) higher than it "should be".

It doesn't take a mathemetician to figure this out, Natoma.

 

It works by not having a state that charges income tax. They do exist you know. In fact, NOT having an income tax used to be the norm around here. (And in your case a State AND a city).

God I wish people would have to write a check to the various governments every time they got paid, instead of it being withheld automatically...

 

This doesn't mean that states shouldn't be MORE autonomous than they are today.

 

wasn't making a good or bad judgement. just stating the current facts.

 

Natoma,

Joe is right. In your original example, you didn't provide the correct data. I thought you were using the numbers through the 2003 budget year, not numbers that were partly through 2004, and some others to the end of 2004.

However Joe, Natoma's revised numbers using the 2001 through 2003 data are correct. They are coming from the same source and therefor match up properly.

Either way, I don't really care. In short, Natoma you were wrong before, but you corrected your numbers as Joe pointed out. I'm surprised you even went that far. I know how much you hate to be wrong. just kiddin.

 

Natoma...this is irrelevant.

NATIONAL DEBT IS AN ACCUMULATION OVER TIME. THE BUDGET IS AN ANNUAL NUMBER. A % INCREASE IN THE NATIONAL DEBT DOES NOT REFLECT THE SAME % CHANGE IN THE DEFICIT. IT'S NOT ADDITIVE.

Somebody please help Natoma....he's more mathematically challenged than I am, and that's not saying a whole helluva lot.

That's PRECISELY because your MATH is NOT CONSISTENT.

 

Yeah, when Natoma gets backed into a corner, that's ususally when he asks for his friends come and lend a hand.