Bush and the Poor
President George Bush has done everything that he can to ignore the poor. He has slashed programs that were designed to help the poor. He gave tax breaks to the rich and he gave the poor a lump of coal. So, in his weekly radio address the president is worried about the poor. I don’t think that 7 years into his presidency Uncle George will change his stripes.
I find it ironic that George Bush has tried to cut LIHEAP (Low income heating energy assistance program) 5 years in a row. Congress restored funding in spite of Bush’s request.
———–
From RS:
President Bush tried Saturday to assure many families that he knows they are struggling to pay bills, even as he again defended the economy’s strength.
“Some of you worry about your ability to afford health care coverage for your families,” Bush said in his weekly radio address, recorded at his Texas ranch.
“Some of you are concerned about meeting your monthly mortgage payments,” Bush said. “Some of you worry about the impact of rising energy costs on fueling your cars and heating your homes. You expect your elected leaders in Washington to address these pressures.”
Bush said he and Congress recently came to terms on some ways to help, including an energy bill and a measure to help families avoid a tax hit when they refinance a mortgage. (more…)
And who would pay for all these programs you want which weren’t cut at all but just didn’t grow as much as liberals want? Money doesn’t come from nowhere - it comes from taxpayers who are struggling to support themselves and their families!
These programs were easily paid for under Clinton. Take back the give aways to the Rich, the oil companies and the rich. Now, you have plenty of money to pay for the programs and pay down the deficit.
Wow that was easy.
Jason, thanks for your comments.
What give aways are you talking about? Do you mean the money the so called rich earn? Why do you believe that the government spends taxpayers money more efficiently than tax payers themselves?
And what give aways to the oil companies? Charge the oil companies more and the consumer pays more and that stifles the economy! As for programs that were paid for under Clinton - which are getting less dollars now? None - when we hear that there are cuts - that’s code for less growth than a liberal wants!
Jason -
Thanks again for your comments.
At the root of your argument, the underlying question is how much is enough? Well, look back to the 1960s, over 70% of the tax revenue came from corporations. Now, corporations pay approximate 35%. Because of this, corporate profits have increased at the same time the middle and lower classes have made less and less headway. There is a reason that corporations are now making record profits. As you recall, corporations did very well under the Clinton administration. They were doing fine. They were making money. They were growing. Now, they’re making money by the oil tanker full. It was a corporate giveaway. Anytime a corporation or a group of companies who are already making excellent profits (measured by increased stock prices) are given tax breaks what else can you call it a corporate giveaway.
Let’s look at it another way, there is a reason why nobody is saving money. I do not believe it’s because we don’t want to save. I believe it’s because it’s getting harder and harder to save because “basics” continue to go up in price and at the same time wages are stagnant.
Unfortunately, you’ve bought into the neoconservative argument that tax cuts equals growth. If you can find any data to support this position please let me know. Ronald Reagan realized that the trickle-down effect, supply-side economics, did not work. This is why he progressively raised taxes after his big tax cut to make up for the fall in revenue. There’s a reason why the best economy that we have seen since World War II occurred in the late 90s. Targeted tax cuts to the middle class allowed them to have more spending money. This spurred economic growth and in turn increased wages. Which, again, increased spending money to both the middle and lower classes. This is not happen during the Bush administration. Wages have been stagnant. Tax cuts were specifically targeted to the rich.
When you have people like Bill Gates Sr. and Warren Buffett, both of whom are insanely rich, have clearly stated that they are not paying enough in taxes, we have a problem. The thing that I find that is really funny is that neoconservatives have convinced the middle class that the rich are already paying enough in taxes. They present no data to support their arguments. Instead, they play to the aspirations of all of us to hopefully be rich someday. The repeal of the estate tax is an excellent example of how the rich continue to get richer. Making money in this country or any other country is simply a game. The rules are set up by Congress. The rich have learned to play the game better than the rest of us. They have benefited from these rules. It is not unreasonable to ask them to pay a little bit more of their income so that we can continue to play the game.
again, thanks for your comments.
oh boy where do I start:
1. i agree the main issue is how much is enough - the thing we should be doing is cutting taxes across the board - not worry about how much are corporations paying - any tax a corporation pays comes out of share holders income - people who invest in the economy or are passed along to consumers so don’t pretend corporate taxes are coming from some magical place that doesn’t effect the economy or hurt consumers/tax payers!
2. the greatest economic growth came with the Reagan tax cuts! Let’s not try to rewrite history!!
3. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can afford to pay more in taxes - its the middle class that liberals have taxed and spent into such hardship - the top 1% pay 40% of income taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the top 10% pay 70% - HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH??!!
Jason -
I appreciate your passion.
Please show me the data that you have to support your statement that Reagan had the “greatest economic growth”. I don’t think that’s true and I don’t think that you can find any data to support that.
Again, I would ask you to provide some data to prove that the top 5% pay 60% of their income in federal taxes and the top 10% pay 70%.
I’m looking forward to your reply.
BTW, the way that most thoughtful progressives have approached the problem is to have the top 1% pay more in taxes and to give a tax break or rebate to those Americans making between $30,000 and $100,000. Also, would penalize corporations for shipping jobs overseas. Would increase the corporate tax rate for companies making over $2 million.
Again, I’m looking forward to your data.
i will get the data for you - and why don’t you get me your backup??
Errington mentions one important area I agree with for additional taxation. The increased taxation of the companies that send their work out of the country. The corporations that dissolve their productive workforce and send in overseas to make their stock value increase should be taxed at a higher rate. The workers they laid off didn’t have a say and I would guess none of them even owned stock. The call centers, garment workers, every item you go to the store and read where it was produced there was possibly a company in the US that was put out of business. But with shipping the work overseas the healthcare and possible retirement benefits previously provided go with it. Those people are the middleclass and below. The oil companies is where some of the powerful republicans have earned the wealth. The oil companies threaten to raise the proce of gas if touched in any way. I wonder how many illegal workers they employ?
Jason -
My back up? I’m confused?
Backup I am requesting:
1. Which programs were slashed? with monetary figures
2. show me specific “give aways”
3. show me how the middle class and lower class has made less and less headway?
4. show me the levels of savings and their reduction - please make sure to add forced saving such as social security
BTW phrases like “thoughtful progressives” are so loaded as to be out of place in debate
OK, my backup:
1. who pays taxes: http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
2. Reagan vs Clinton economic growth 9and let’s not forget part of Clinton’s growth was from the reagan tax cuts!): http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/images/bg1414tab1.gif
Jason -
I’m impressed. You did your homework. You looked up the information and got back to me. I’m very impressed.
If you don’t mind, I would like to start from the bottom and work my way up.
Maybe I misunderstood your last comment. As I read the graph, for example for the year 2005, the top 1% pay 39% of all income tax paid. The top 10% pay 70% of all income tax paid. This is exactly as expected. This is what you would expect to happen in a graduated tax system. The question isn’t what percentage should the top 1% pay. But instead, a person making $10 million a year, using various tax shelters can pay significantly less, by percentage, then someone making $40,000 a year. I think that you would agree that that is somewhat of a problem.
As far as the Reagan vs Clinton thing - check out this snapshot from the Economic Policy Institute - http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_06162004
Now, you first group of questions
1) Bush continuously has tried to cut domestic programs in order to pay for his tax cuts to the wealthy. There are lots of examples. Here’s a couple - http://www.cbpp.org/2-27-04bud-pr.htm. In Bush’s 2007 Budget here are some of the cuts he proposed.
Sizeable Program Cuts
* The budget would cut expenditures for non-defense discretionary programs outside homeland security by a cumulative total of $125 billion over the next five years, as compared to what expenditures for these programs would be if funding for the programs simply remained at the 2006 level, adjusted only for inflation. By 2011, expenditures for programs in this part of the budget would be cut an average of 10 percent.
* Cuts would be made in hundreds of domestic discretionary programs across the budget, including education programs, environmental protection programs, numerous programs to assist low-income families, children, and elderly and disabled people, and research related to cancer, heart disease, and other medical conditions.
* Program Terminations: For example, among the domestic discretionary programs that would be terminated are:
o The Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which provides nutritional food packages for less than $20 a month to more than 400,000 low-income elderly people, one-third of whom are over age 75;
o The Preventive Care Block Grant, which is operated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and provides grants to states for preventive health services for underserved populations;
o The TRIO Talent Search program, under which colleges and universities — in many cases, Historically Black Colleges and Universities — assist disadvantaged secondary school students (two-thirds of whom are minority) by providing them with academic, career, and financial counseling so they will better be able to finish high school and attend college;
o The Community Services Block Grant, which provides funding for a range of social services and other types of assistance to low-income families and elderly and disabled individuals.
Other programs that would be terminated include: the Emergency Watershed Protection Program, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, and Safe and Drug Free Schools Grants.
* Deep Program Cuts: Among the domestic discretionary programs that would be cut deeply are:
o Section 202 housing for the low-income elderly — funding in 2007 would be cut 26 percent below the 2006 level, even before adjustment for inflation.
o Section 811 housing for low-income people with disabilities — cut 50 percent in 2007.
o Community Development Block Grant formula grant program — cut 20 percent in 2007.
o Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), which promotes community policing primarily by putting police on the streets — cut 79 percent in 2007.
* Cuts in child care: The President’s budget also calls for cuts in discretionary child care funding for children from low- and moderate-income families, with the cuts totaling $1 billion over the next five years as compared to the fiscal year 2006 funding levels adjusted for inflation. Data from the President’s budget show that at the proposed funding levels, the number of children receiving child care assistance in 2011 would drop by more than 400,000 as compared to the number who received assistance in 2005.
* These cuts would be made despite the fact that domestic discretionary programs have not contributed to the return of budget deficits. After having been cut in inflation-adjusted terms in fiscal year 2006, total funding for domestic discretionary programs outside homeland security is lower now as a share of the economy than it was in 2001. (It has fallen from 3.4 percent of GDP in 2001 to 3.1 percent of GDP this year.
2) Give away are a matter of perspective. You might think that they are well earned tax rebates. I think that the tax cuts to the oil companies which have allowed ridiculous profits is a give away.
3) Average US income fell during the first 5 or 6 years of Bush’s presidency. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2006-02-23-fed-incomes_x.htm and although income has started to raise again, it hasn’t risen to 1999 levels. http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf
4) Personal saving rate by the St. Louis fed. http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/personal-savings-rate.jpg
Thanks for your questions. I think that I answered most of them.
BTW, Jason - I posted that Ron Paul video that I promised. http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2007/12/31/mtp-ron-paul-get-rid-of-income-tax/
with all due respect - lets see budget approvals and then the President’s proposals - not a list from who knows where and not with inflation or anything else built in - we all know that game!
Where’s the true comparison?
Jason -
One would think that looking at the budget proposals would be the “pure” way to do things. unfortunately, it is clear that presidents will add or subtract things to make political points knowing that Congress will have to amend the item.
So, just pick a comparison. Some are good and others aren’t.
Pure is showing the approved budget from the previous year and then the President’s proposal for the current year. In dollars! Not a list from - where exactly?
Jason -
If you can find such a table I’ll be happy to look at it. Again, because president propose items that they know will not get past Congress I’m not sure how pure that kind of table is. Presidents also cut things for political gain knowing that Congress will restore funding. For example, Bush as proposed a cut to the Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) every year that he has been in office. The program works well. It isn’t that expensive and it truly helps those in need. Congress has restored every dollar Bush has cut every year.
The final approved budget is truly what the President has to take responsibility for whether he likes it or not.
OK, so the truth comes out, the entire list of cuts is as phony as you! thanks for proving my point!!
You say Bush has proposed cuts but have no backup at all, none whatsoever….
Jason -
You should take your act on the road. It is pretty funny.
It is clear that Bush and the neocons proposed tax cuts and passed tax cuts. I didn’t think that I needed to prove the obvious. Here’s his first tax cut. Here’s Bush’s initial proposal. Here’s another version of his 2001 proposal. Okay, now that i have done the research for you, what else can i provide for you?
Oh, I know. Wealth distribution. Since you were complaining that the Wealthy are paying too much in taxes. The top 20% of Americans own 80% of the wealth.
Show me the cuts! Real cuts, not decreases in expectations! You haven’t yet….i wonder why?
LOL
Let’s not forget when it comes to paying taxes that the top 1% pay 40% of income taxes, the top 5% pay 60%, the top 10% pay 70% - HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH??!!
Remember, people spend better and their spending leads to jobs and growth while government spending leads to waste and slow or no growth!