Scott Allan’s World

15 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

1. Please visit The Patriot’s Resistance at http://www.resistnet.com (the Alabama group) and share info regarding the April 15th Tea Party.  I’ve also read on http://www.TeamSarah.org that people are looking for info on an April 15th Tea Party in the Bham area. 

   1. Carla on March 5th, 2009 at 10:59 am

2. Scott, if tax policy is the prime mover of the economy then a comparison of the years after President Clinton’s tax increase and Bush’s tax cuts should be very instructive.  Between 1996 and 2000, the economy grew 18 percent and resulted in $236 billion budget surplus.  In the years following the Bush tax cuts (2001-2005) the economy grew 13 percent and resulted in $318 billion budget deficit.  How do you explain this?

   2. Silke on March 7th, 2009 at 9:50 pm

3. Silke,

   Clinton and Gingrich balanced the budget.  They got spending under control and did it in relatively peaceful and prosperous times.  I have nothing but praise for that.   Bush had quite a disadvantage of having a disasterous hurricane, a tsunami in Asia, and a major terrorist attacks which spawned the war on terror, created the Dept of Homeland Security and increases in military spending.  Considering all that spending and that Bush actually suppressed a recession that he inherited with the tax cuts, I would gladly take a 13% rise in GDP during that time.

   If massive deficit spending grows the economy, why don’t we just spend a trillion dollars per day?  Imagine how well that would work.  Whether you have spending increases or tax cuts as a solution, you have to make up the spending deficit the same way, either through cutting spending or increasing taxes. It would seem to me that tax cuts coupled with reduced spending is a better recipe for success than increased spending and increased taxes.  If you like increasing taxes and believe that is truly beneficial, then just increase them all to 100% and let the government be the economy.   I personally can’t see how taking more out of the hands of the people is better.   However, since you seem to indicate that you prefer Clinton’s balanced budget over a deficit, how can you possibly like Obama’s plan?

   3. Scott Allan on March 8th, 2009 at 9:39 am

4. My point is that the economy is largely dependent on other factors rather than tax policy (as you point out in your response).  I think a 3% rise in the top two marginal tax rates is a reasonable measure to help pay for the increased spending necessary to help spur the economy.  It didn’t seem to harm the economy during Clinton’s term nor did it prevent the collapse of the economy during Bush’s term.

   4. Silke on March 8th, 2009 at 11:02 am

5. You know, the obama administration has talked of a mandatory volunteer program.  Maybe they should just make it mandatory that all adults make a certain amount, so they can give, give, give more taxes — thereby being more pratriotic.  If you are working 40 hours a week & make 40K, then you’ll need to work another 80 hours per week to meet your minimum tax contribution. 

   Because a person makes sacrifices & works their tail off & therefore over time becomes more successful, you are saying that they should be penalized.  I’m so sick of this lazy, liberal mentality.  Even when our family struggled financially and could only afford one car, we never sat around crying about those “rich people” or thinking someone owed us a handout.  We worked hard to change our lives, we realized that we’d never get ahead with outrageous debt & filling our home with things we couldn’t afford. 
    
    
    

   5. Carla on March 8th, 2009 at 11:52 am

6. Look, all I’m saying is that if history is any indicator a return to the tax rates we had during the Clinton Administration won’t necessarily destroy the economy.  It will also help pay down our debt.  I don’t think a 3% increase on the marginal tax rates of the top two income brackets is unreasonable.  Yes we have to get spending under control but right now the economy needs a shot in the arm.

   6. Silke on March 8th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

7. Silke,

   Sure I’ll agree that a 3% increase probably would not seem do significant harm to the economy.  That’s why you have to take these things out to extremes to see what the effect they really have.  By increasing the tax rate up to 80-90% or decreasing down to 10% you know what the effect on the economy will be.   At extreme levels, tax increases would suppress the economy and tax reductions stimulate it so even though it may appear that 3% does no harm, it certainly is not helping.

   The other big myth is that that a 3% tax hike on the top 2% of income earners can actually fund this budget.

   I know you’re big on math so here are the facts:

   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

   You would have to take 100% of the income from those making over $500,000 to yield $1.3 trillion dollars.  That’s not 3%, that’s 100%. To balance the $4 Trillion budget for 2010, you would have to tax everybody making over $75,000 at 100%.

   The 3% increase is a lie.  It will have virtually no impact on closing the deficit gap.  It’s a con game designed to create class warfare, redistribute wealth, and promote a society more dependent on government.

   7. Scott Allan on March 8th, 2009 at 12:44 pm

8. Get a grip, Silke.  Every other month, you people are asking for a shot in the arm!  like a bunch of junkies.  Over government doesn’t need some “shot in the arm,” it needs amputation.  However, we see the new administration wanting to create jobs by growing the government overhead and socializing our medicine (which obviously, we can’t afford; you may want to look up the word ‘afford’). 

   A “shot in the arm” is not a benefit when you’re borrowing money that you can’t possibly pay back; it’s actually a path to bankruptcy — a short-term crutch.  Do you run your household that way? 

   We have a leader that’s in over his head and a bunch of whining babies, saying “give me, give me, give me…..”  Remember this, the more you rely on government to ”help” you, the more you’ll have to rely on the government until you are no longer in control of your life or future.  I’ve had tenants on housing “assistance” (rbtl hand-out/welfare), that have said, “Oh, I’d never do anything to get kicked off the program.”  You mean like further your education or get a job to actually support your family?  Or those tenants that won’t get married because she receives the “assistance” and his income would get them “kicked off the program.”  Real assistance would be giving these people a termination date for their free housing & giving them the opportunity to further their education before the termination date.  The current government “assistance” is just a way for them to cripple people.  Now they want to expand this crippling effect to the rest of the US population; and they’ve got people like you, Silke, who’ve drank the kool-aide and signed up to spread their lies. 

   8. Carla on March 8th, 2009 at 1:57 pm

9. Scott, I’m not proposing we increase taxes to extreme levels and I agree we have to strike a reasonable balance between generating revenues and promoting a strong economy.  We already know that the economy can perform perfectly well under an additional 3% tax increase on the top two marginal rates so I don’t think my position is unreasonable.  I understand this is not going to pay for everything.  We’re going to have to make some tough choices in the near future (particularly when it comes to Social Security and Medicare) but this option seems sensible to me right now.
   Carla, I agree government spending is out of control and we are passing on a crushing debt burden to our children.  My comments on this post are with respect to tax policy, which I believe can help alleviate some of that debt.
    

   9. Silke on March 8th, 2009 at 8:18 pm

10. It just feels like you are comparing apples and oranges.   The economic environment is completely different now.  It’s easy to raise taxes a slight bit during a healthy economy and not see any discernible effect, but that’s not what we have now.  Any tax increase of any size right now could be disasterous.  The stock market has not reacted favorably at all to any of Obama’s proposals which means that investors have no confidence in the solution.   Let’s look at the 3% increase this way,  liposuction on a healthy person poses no danger but try the same procedure on a person with pneumonia or heart failure and see what happens.  It is just not the right time for a massive overhaul of social policies when our economy is on life support.  Let’s save the patient first.

    10. Scott Allan on March 9th, 2009 at 7:33 am

11. The 3% tax increase won’t take affect until 2011.  But timing is not the issue with you.  In principle you don’t want any taxes to be raised on anyone ever.  I do recognize that things are different right now with the economy as bad as it is - which is why I’m not as concerned about the spending as I usually am.  This is also why I think we need to take some reasonable measures to pay for that spending.

    11. Silke on March 9th, 2009 at 9:04 am

12. Reasonable measures would be to use common sense — stop spending money we don’t have.  Financial responsibility — stop funding pet projects like acorn, Planned Parenthood, catfish farms in Alabama — just to name a few.  The 3% doesn’t affect you, so you don’t see any harm in demanding a little more of what someone else has worked hard to get.  Even though they’re paying the majority of taxes, let ‘em pay a little more.  

       

    12. Carla on March 9th, 2009 at 9:24 am

13. Yes it’s true I feel that people deserve to keep as much money as they possibly can and that the people will spend it far more wisely and efficiently than the government.  Government should be as small and limited in power as is reasonably possible.  I guess I’d like to think the $1 Trillion we get in taxes already should be plenty to run our government.  $1 Trillion dollars is an absudly gigantic amount of money.  We need more responsible management of the taxes we already pay.  As an economy grows, tax receipts should increase all by itself without a need to increase the percent paid.  If an economy shrinks, tough decisions need to be made about what we can and cannot pay for.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    13. Scott Allan on March 9th, 2009 at 9:33 am

14. Obama Budget: More than $1.6 Trillion in new taxes

    http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/obama-budget-more-than-16

    14. Carla on March 9th, 2009 at 9:50 am

15. An April 15th Tax Rally is planned for Veteran’s Park on Valleydale road.  The planning is being done by the Rainy Day Patriots, sponsors of shelbycoteaparty.wordpress.com.  Dorthey Knight is the event coordinator, and there will be a planning session for the event held 03/17/2009.  If you would like to be part of the planning, please write to shelbycoteaparty@gmail.com.

    Kelly Knights last blog post..Let Shelby and Sessions know your dismay

    15. Kelly Knight on March 12th, 2009 at 6:55 pm