NYTimes , Today 4/30 Friedmans piece.

[Oldbabe]

Originally Posted by samclem

Just as background: The US government took in more money last year than any year on record. Many believe this is because of the tax cuts. As a nation, we've tried confiscatory tax rates in the past, and it never ends well.
.

I don't know if this is true that more taxes were paid than any year on record. Do you have a citation (link) to a reputable source? In any case, our country is running a net deficit and the debt is higher than at any time in history. It doesn't matter how much in taxes the government collects if they just spend it all, and more, on the Iraq war and borrow the rest from China, Japan, and other countries. Then debase our currency as a way of reneging on the debt.

Obama is in favor of fiscal discipline and he has outlined how he intends to implement his economic program. McCain wants to continue the tax policies of the Bush years and continue waging war in Iraq. He doesn't address the debt at all.

Obama has stated in the CNBC interview which I posted above that he is NOT in favor of returning to confiscatory tax rates of the past. He is in favor of returning to tax rates of the Reagan years.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by Oldbabe

I don't know if this is true that more taxes were paid than any year on record. Do you have a citation (link) to a reputable source?

Well, couldn't find last year, but here is a graph from the Treasury Dept showing total fed tax revenue through 2005.

I'm trying to find information on Barrack and his tax and spending plans but it is fairly scrarce/vague at this time. My hunch is he'll have to make more quantitative statements during the general election. He has said he intends to spend more on social programs and to redistribute wealth in a way he considers to be more "fair." He said that getting out of Iraq will pay for some of that and higher taxes will pay for the rest. I'm anxious to know how he'll structure higher taxes and wealth redistribution. And, since raising taxes doesn't always result in more revenue collected, I'm curious as to how that will work out.

I agree with you that it would be good to lower or even eliminate deficit budgets by spending less and or collecting more. Dramatically reducing spending on Iraq is hard to argue with. But after that, which taxes get raised on who and who benefits from lower taxes and increased programs is more controversial, especially at the borderline income levels.

I'm always in favor of those making more $$$ than me paying higher proportional taxes. And, of course, those who make the same or less than me should pay lower proportional taxes. Now I just need to know where Barrack is going to draw the line below which he says he'll reduce taxes and above which he says he'll raise taxes! He's being very elusive about that.......

Here's that graph from Sec of Treas

[samclem]

Originally Posted by Oldbabe

I don't know if this is true that more taxes were paid than any year on record. Do you have a citation (link) to a reputable source?

Your wish is my command.
Figures (approx trillions of USD, based on my squinting at the bar charts)

Year------------2005-----------2006------------------ 2007
Total Rev -------2.2-------------2.4---------------------2.6
Fm Ind Inc taxes-1.7-------------1.8---------------------2.0
Fm Corp taxes----.3---------------.4--------------------- .4
Fm SS/Medicare --.8---------------.8---------------------.8


So, yes, total tax revenues have been going up (even after correcting for inflation, real taxes paid to the government have been going up)--don't look for this information on (MoveOn.org!).
Link: See page 4 (pg five on the Adobe page count) of the .pdf file: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/financ...zens_guide.pdf

This is not unusual: There were increases in tax revenues after this tax cut, after the Reagan tax cut and after the Kennedy tax cut. It doesn't always happen, but it frequently does.

Originally Posted by Oldbabe

In any case, our country is running a net deficit and the debt is higher than at any time in history. It doesn't matter how much in taxes the government collects if they just spend it all, and more, on the Iraq war and borrow the rest from China, Japan, and other countries. Then debase our currency as a way of reneging on the debt.

I'm glad Obama's supporters care about fiscal discipline. This makes it extremely likely that many will vote for McCain. If Obama is being advised by the adults in his campaign to paint McCain as fiscally irresponsible, be needs to get some new advisors. McCain has been a fiscal conservative for a very long time--being sent to defend an agency's budget in front of him is a notoriously grueling experience.
Let's look at two numbers: Earmarks directly inserted by each senator last year:
John Sidney McCain III: Zero ($0)
Barrack Hussein Obama: $91 million

Now, $91 million isn't a lot in government circles, but which man is in a better position to address the legislative branch about the need for fiscal discipline without being a hypocrite?

[Oldbabe]

From my point of view, being fiscally irresponsible means spending more than you take in and not addressing the issue. McCain wants to continue the Bush tax cuts and continue spending on Iraq. We've been going down that road for 7 years now and look at the national debt! We can't afford to continue these policies.

Realistically, the next administration, Republican or Democrat, will have to come to grips with the reality of our economic situation. I doubt that any of their promises or hopes and dreams for no new taxes or more ear marks or new programs will come to fruition in the face of our humoungous national debt and also the unfunded mandates for Medicare and Social Security. The sh*t will hit the fan no matter who's in office.