Something tells me you won't hear this from the NYT anytime soon...

[Briareos]

"Many people in Washington have long known a dirty little secret about tax-cut measures: When done right, they actually result in more money for the government.

Ever since the Senate approved the last major tax relief bill, in 2003, revenues have increased every year. In 2004, they went up 5.5%. Last year, they rose 14.5%, the largest increase in nearly 25 years.

Total government collections, in fact, increased more after President Bush's 2003 tax cuts than they did after President Clinton's 1994 tax hikes." -- Bill Frist

Did anyone here actually know this before I posted it?

[Magneto_X]

If this is true shouldn't the IRS be looking into it?

[stealthwise]

Isn't that supposed to be the point of tax cuts? To alleviate pressure on the citizens and allow them to buy more? This increase in purchasing power (because we all just love to spend) means more money for businesses, which should, in theory, allow for greater salaries.

[Lubichev]

So that makes it all okay, then.

[kingdom2000]

Also, as Sam is fond of pointing out, the source is more then a little iffy. Congressman "I can make a diagnosis from a video" Frist has shown a remarkable history of breaking the truth. I find his choice of 1994 for comparison interesting for instance.

[Magneto_X]

Isn't Frist the guy who *dissected* cats as a hobby?!? :eek:

[Azrael52]

I've always been a backer of this theory (not the one about dissecting cats, but of the initial post).

[Ogdred]

Did anyone here actually know this before I posted it?

I don't "know" it now, considering no attribution is given other than who allegedly said it. You give no dates. You don't say where it was reported. And you've apparently expended no energy at all in figuring out if what he says is actually true.

Furthermore, Sen. Frist is not a disinterested source. Even if it's true that over-all federal collections grew at a greater rate after the 2003 tax cuts than after the 1994 tax hikes, those certainly were not the only factors in play. Plus, what is he saying here? He's talking about a rate of growth in federal tax collections. He says nothing about actual dollars collected.

But, listen, I'm not ideologically opposed to tax cuts. I'm opposed to the way those cuts are targeted to help the wealthiest, while little or nothing is done for the middle-class and working poor.

[titanfan]

Isn't that supposed to be the point of tax cuts? To alleviate pressure on the citizens and allow them to buy more? This increase in purchasing power (because we all just love to spend) means more money for businesses, which should, in theory, allow for greater salaries.

Yes. There's enough data out there to show that tax cuts definitely work (if done right) in stimulating the economy. You can disagree that it's not the *best* way to help out the economy, but it does help.

But, listen, I'm not ideologically opposed to tax cuts. I'm opposed to the way those cuts are targeted to help the wealthiest, while little or nothing is done for the middle-class and working poor.

Well, the tax cut in question actually targetted the middle class most of all. I do think that it's true that the poor eats it the most when it comes to tax cuts. The reason for that when you want to stimulate the economy, you do it from the top. The rich people get tax cuts because they are the job creators. The middle class get tax cuts because they buy the most disposable goods (per capita) of any class.

I was actually concerned about the Bush tax cuts because they targetted the middle class too much at the expense of the wealthy and upper class, but there's no way to get such a bill approved past congress.

[Tommy]

The rich people get tax cuts because they are the job creators.
Rich people stay rich by not spending money. Hence why trickle down theory is crap. The Rich people who do spend their money inevitably spend outside their means and cease to be rich in reality. Hence why there is so much debt amongst the upper class. For every Paris Hilton spending wily nilly there are many more Bill Gates hording their money.

[Noah Johnson]

Huh. That's funny. Every single source I've seen shows that Bush's tax cuts crippled government revenue, resulting in the massive deficits we now enjoy.

Bri, on the other hand, has one unsourced quote from a known liar, who apparently thinks that revenue has gone up enormously, but evil gnomes have taken all the money away to Slumberland.

Wait, that's not funny, that's just pathetic.

[Ed Cunard]

I don't "know" it now, considering no attribution is given other than who allegedly said it.

And you couldn't have possibly heard it. Although the idea of a talking, singing and dancing NYT makes me happy.

I like musicals.

[Nick Soapdish]

I hadn't heard it.

I do recall mwm whatever posting a link that showed that revenues fell drastically after the Bush cuts, but were projected to have the largest increase of all time this year. Although he failed to mention that most of that increase was due to the expiration of those tax cuts. :rolleyes:

Does Frist have a source?

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if we had a boost in revenues. Our economy was in the crapper and was starting to pull out in the way. You'd expect a bit of a boost just from that. It's very difficult to isolate a single influence upon the economy as the trigger for a certain effect. And given Frist's apparent incompetence at something that he actually did take classes in, I don't really trust in his ability to make those judgements at something that he doesn't have any degrees in (to my knowledge).

[AllisterH]

Rich people stay rich by not spending money. Hence why trickle down theory is crap. The Rich people who do spend their money inevitably spend outside their means and cease to be rich in reality. Hence why there is so much debt amongst the upper class. For every Paris Hilton spending wily nilly there are many more Bill Gates hording their money.

Seriously, I thought Reaganomics had been debunked by any decent economist by at least the early 90s. The whole idea that since a rich person gets an extra 1 million to spend, they'll spend it is ludicrous. Sure, just because a bank has more liquid cash thanks to rich people saving, that doesn't mean they're going to lower the interest rate.

I've always been more partial to trickle-up theory as inflation is more something the Feds can control than the voodoo economics of Reagan.

(geez, even in Gr. 12, I knew trickle down was crap. Who actually believes that nonsense still?)

[PatrickG]

Rich people stay rich by not spending money. Hence why trickle down theory is crap. The Rich people who do spend their money inevitably spend outside their means and cease to be rich in reality. Hence why there is so much debt amongst the upper class. For every Paris Hilton spending wily nilly there are many more Bill Gates hording their money.

No rich person will ever be able to stay rich by not spending money.

[Ogdred]

Well, the tax cut in question actually targetted the middle class most of all.

It depends on how you define "middle class."

The rich people get tax cuts because they are the job creators.

Well, that's definitely the Republican talking-point on the issue, but the majority of rich people are not "job creators."

[Adam Crocker]

Furthermore, Sen. Frist is not a disinterested source.

Well more relevantly...


Bri, on the other hand, has one unsourced quote from a known liar...


No rich person will ever be able to stay rich by not spending money.

Patrick has a point. If you spend your money on investments or a business venture you can get richer which is what smart business men like Gates do, instead of indolent whelps like Hilton.

[Ogdred]

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if we had a boost in revenues. Our economy was in the crapper and was starting to pull out in the way.

Exactly. When recovering from a recession, of course revenues are going to go up...often at an impressive rate. Impressive, that is, if you don't take into account the enormous drop that preceded it.

[the4thpip]

No rich person will ever be able to stay rich by not spending money.
Well, interest rates are going up again. At some point, they might meet inflation. :p

[Tad Sivana]

If this is true...which I'd like to see some proof of...it still won't matter.
You can't have the greatest outlay of treasure in the nation's history (with no discernable return, ever!) and expect to keep a balanced budget....even if you do raise taxes, something every real war president has done. He shows the budget improving by ignoring the war expenditures.
W. also IS raising taxes...the sneaky way...by eliminating and reducing deductions. Expect shrieks of pain from homeowners this spring.
Hey, I don't mind...I'd rather pay a little more and have a stable economy, but I'm sure Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave at high RPM from the vast expenditures, government waste and corruption and lack of high-level management of our government spending.
W's legacy is big government, high-spending, interference in your private life,
waste and mismanagement plus escalation of militarization and arms races.
Ronnie's now a blur.

[Noah Johnson]

Hey, I don't mind...I'd rather pay a little more and have a stable economy, but I'm sure Ronald Reagan is spinning in his grave at high RPM from the vast expenditures, government waste and corruption and lack of high-level management of our government spending.
Um, Reagan was a HUGE fan of all those things. You think he's upset because he can't get in on the current round of give-your-friends-the-public's-money?

[kingdom2000]

It depends on how you define "middle class."



Well, that's definitely the Republican talking-point on the issue, but the majority of rich people are not "job creators."

My understanding is that lower class is 20k or less. Middle class is bascially 20k - 200,000k. So when some say it benefits the middle class, technically they are correct...but which part of the middle class? My understanding is that the tax cuts overwhelmingly helped anyone that made 100k and up. The more you made, the more it benefited you.

Now, must re-iterate like always, that I don't mind tax cuts for the rich. If it helped. If there is a corresponding cut in spending across the board, ie not just "entitlement" and education, but across the board cuts. Five years of cuts, a historically high deficit, and only modest improvement on the economy does not sound like a successful plan to me.

[Tad Sivana]

Um, Reagan was a HUGE fan of all those things. You think he's upset because he can't get in on the current round of give-your-friends-the-public's-money?
Well...he campaigned against big government...and actually did downsize it to a certain extent. Yes, he did some things I didn't like, but there were a LOT fewer nuclear warheads deployed at the end of his term than when he took office, and that's what I really liked, plus he wanted a balanced budget and I think he'd be horrified by W's regime. Like him or not, Reagan offered some new and different ideas. W's admin is totally retro...no new ideas.

[Evan Waters]

No rich person will ever be able to stay rich by not spending money.

Nonsense.

Say I have 5 million dollars. I put it in a standard bank account, modest interest. I buy a nice house, my wife and I have a couple of kids, raise them well, send them to good schools.

By the time I die I'll probably still have about 2 million left. At least.

[Crowley]

Did anyone here actually know this before I posted it?
he said as much on MEET the PRESS 2 weeks back...

here's what else was said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11047820/

SEN. FRIST: You have to increase the money coming into our government. The Democrats say tax people more, that’s what—the Democrats today, they really don’t have much in the way of principles and ideas, but the one thing they do today is say, “Raise your taxes” to the American people, to all your listeners right now, “We want to raise your taxes today.” And I’d say now is not the time to raise your taxes. Why? Because, as I just said, we cut them in 2001, 2002, 2003.

MR. RUSSERT: But the Democrats will say, when they left and gave the White House and the Congress over to the Republicans, the White House certainly in 2001, there was a surplus.

SEN. FRIST: There was,

also:
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to an issue that’s been raised about you, and that is stocks. Here’s the headline in The Washington Post: “Frist Stock Sale Raises Questions. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has maintained for years that his stockholdings in the nation’s largest for-profit hospital chain posed no conflict of interest for a policymaker deeply involved in healthcare matters. So when Frist decided in June ‘05 to dump all the stock and later cited as the reason a desire to avoid appearance of a conflict of interest, eyebrows went up among ethics experts and congressional watchdogs. Why did he do it at that time? Precisely a month later, after the stock was sold, its price tumbled 9 percent when executives in the company—HCA Inc., which was founded by Frist’s father" and whose brother "Frist’s brother serves—disclosed that hospital admissions of insured patients were lower than expected, depressing profits in the second quarter. The timing thus raised questions about whether Frist had somehow traded on information he obtained in advance from the company.”

Then it says, in The Hill editorial, “Frist’s denial of any advance knowledge of HCA’s subpar performance was undermined by the fact that 14 HCA executives unloaded shares worth more than $53 million in April ‘05 and by the fact he has not been concerned about a possible conflict of interest earlier.” What do you say?

SEN. FRIST: Well, it’s pretty straightforward, the facts speak for themselves. I did voluntarily, when I came into the United States Senate, set up a blind trust, purely voluntary, to eliminate any appearance—any appearance of a conflict of interest over the last 10 years.

MR. RUSSERT: But it wasn’t blind, Senator.

SEN. FRIST: It is a blind trust as defined by the statute of the United States of America and by our Senate ethics rules. It is a blind trust.

MR. RUSSERT: But it’s different when you, you told CNBC, “It should be understood I put this into a blind trust. So far as I know. I own no HCA stock. ...It’s a blind trust. Totally blind. I have no control.” That’s not accurate.

SEN. FRIST: You know, I could’ve been more precise in my words. First of all, it is a blind trust as defined by the United statutes of the United States of America. It is a federally qualified blind trust. And it has regulations and rules that have to be followed and that I followed. I’ve acted properly throughout. So the interpretation of a blind trust, what America thinks is a blind trust may be something different, but I’m going to follow the rules. Which I did. Every move was cleared by inside counsel, outside counsel and the Ethics Committee.

MR. RUSSERT: But you knew you had HCA stock.

SEN. FRIST: Oh, the quotation itself, you're exactly right. I could’ve been more precise. What I should’ve said is that at any point in time, because this is a blind trust, I have no idea how much stock of any particular entity and at any point in time.

MR. RUSSERT: The Securities and Exchange Commission’s investigating, the Justice Department’s investigating. If they find wrongdoing, would you then not run for president?

SEN. FRIST: Well, no decision has been made about my future of what I’m going to do once I leave the United States Senate. I acted properly throughout, so I am confident that the facts are going to speak for themselves. Absolutely confident of that. I acted properly every step along the way. Every step was approved by inside counsel, outside counsel, and the Ethics Committee of the United States Senate in advance of any directive for the sale of the stock.

MR. RUSSERT: But if you never thought it was a conflict of interest, then why did you dump the stock and why did the other 14 members of HCA dump the stock?

SEN. FRIST: Well, the other 14 members, I have no idea. You know, I’m here in the United States Senate. I’ve never worked for HCA. I’ve never worked in HCA hospitals. I’ve never been on the board of HCA. I’m a heart and lung transplant surgeon, worked in Vanderbilt.

Now, the timing issue is an important one because I set this up 10 years ago, blind trust, to eliminate any appearance of a conflict of interest. Trying to, you know, my best to go above and beyond the call of what other United States senators did. You know, it really didn’t work. I heard story after story after story that there is some sort of appearance of a conflict of interest. So finally I got tired of those stories and I said, “Is there anything that can be done?” And the Ethics Committee came forward and said, “Yeah. You can just sell the stock. That’ll get rid of it forever.” I said, “Do it.” And it wasn’t in June, and it was weeks and weeks and weeks before the stock fell X percent in the future.

MR. RUSSERT: But you know the suggestion that for 11 years, you dealt with this perception of a conflict of interest. But when you had some sense things were going bad for the company, you had insider trading and dumped the stock.

SEN. FRIST: No.

MR. RUSSERT: That’s the allegation.

SEN. FRIST: I don’t know if that may or may not be the allegation, but let me make it really clear. I acted properly every step along the way. And I’ve received no tips, no nods, no winks, ever, in regard to this sale.

MR. RUSSERT: And you’ll abide by the decision of the SEC and the Justice Department.

SEN. FRIST: Of course I will.
He's under investigation for insider trading...

[PatrickG]

Nonsense.

Say I have 5 million dollars. I put it in a standard bank account, modest interest. I buy a nice house, my wife and I have a couple of kids, raise them well, send them to good schools.

By the time I die I'll probably still have about 2 million left. At least.

And you earn that interest because the bank is investing that money profitibly, enabling people to get loans and mortgages.

[Evan Waters]

And you earn that interest because the bank is investing that money profitibly, enabling people to get loans and mortgages.

But I'd still have what's left of my five million even if I weren't earning that interest. The interest is immaterial. And how much of that money actually "trickles down" as opposed to just being moved between banks and stockbrokers and various upper-level moneymen?

[Nick Soapdish]

I love this exchange.


Mr. Russert (quoting Frist): "So far as I know. I own no HCA stock. ...It’s a blind trust. Totally blind."

Mr. Russert: That's not accurate.

Sen. Frist: You know, I could’ve been more precise in my words. First of all, it is a blind trust as defined by the United statutes of the United States of America.

Mr. Russert: But you knew you had HCA stock.

Sen. Frist: Oh, the quotation itself, you're exactly right. I could’ve been more precise. What I should’ve said is that at any point in time, because this is a blind trust, I have no idea how much stock of any particular entity and at any point in time.

I don't think precision was the problem. He'd have been fine if he was less precise.

[LtMarvel]

I'm getting my right-winging CBR members confused: Is the thread starter the one that claims genius-level IQ?

Because quoting the oversimplistic relation does not show an even simple understanding of economics, or even basic logic...

[Buzz Dixon]

The original Adam Smith cited this principal centuries ago (I think it was in THE FATE OF NATIONS, but I may be mistaken). Even Lao Tze alludes to it, insofar as the best kind is the one whom nobody notices.

[PatrickG]

But I'd still have what's left of my five million even if I weren't earning that interest. The interest is immaterial. And how much of that money actually "trickles down" as opposed to just being moved between banks and stockbrokers and various upper-level moneymen?

All I'm saying is that if compassion is in no way, shape or form an objective of the government (and I think it's an affirmative argument if you want suggest it should be) giving money to the middle class, upper middle class and upper class makes sense if you want to stimulate the national economy. This is without regards to whether people below the poverty line ever see the money because that simply isn't relevant to the stated objective of economic stimulus.

That said, I think the ideal system of compromise trickledown between economic stimulus and a government that treats itself like a charity is to favor small businesses, say ones with fifty employees or less. And offer incentives that enable those businesses to hire more employees and reward them for paying above the standard entry-level wage for the field in their market. And offer business owners breaks that make it easier to keep their doors open.

[Crowley]

8.8 billion dollars lost in Iraq:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/09/60minutes/main1302378_page3.shtml
"Let me tell you that there’s very little oversight by anybody on anything in this Congress. We have a president and a Congress of the same party. They have no interest in doing any aggressive oversight," Dorgan says.

The only one really looking into it is Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, a position created by Congress in 2004 to monitor construction and development projects to rebuild Iraq.

Asked how he would describe the oversight early on with the CPA, Bowen says, "It was relatively non-existent."

In two lengthy reports, Bowen’s staff outlined suspected fraud and incompetence of staggering proportions. Like the $8.8 billion dollars that the coalition seems to have lost track of.

Bowen says that money is "not accounted for" and acknowledges that nobody really knows exactly where it went.

[the4thpip]

I'm getting my right-winging CBR members confused: Is the thread starter the one that claims genius-level IQ?

Because quoting the oversimplistic relation does not show an even simple understanding of economics, or even basic logic...
No, Samurai is the one who claims to be smart. Bri never did, as far as I remember.

[PatrickG]

8.8 billion dollars lost in Iraq:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/09/60minutes/main1302378_page3.shtml

If I find it, can I keep a billion?

[Ogdred]

My understanding is that lower class is 20k or less. Middle class is bascially 20k - 200,000k. So when some say it benefits the middle class, technically they are correct...but which part of the middle class? My understanding is that the tax cuts overwhelmingly helped anyone that made 100k and up.

This is why I said the definition of "middle class" is important. Honestly, does anyone consider a person who makes $200K a year to be "middle class"? In 2002, the median household income was around $42K a year, which means a lot more American households are closer to poverty than to that magical cut-off point between "middle" and "upper" class.

So, if the majority of those tax cuts go to people making more than $100K a year, then it's not targeted at the middle. It's targeted at the rich.

[Nick Soapdish]

I'm getting my right-winging CBR members confused: Is the thread starter the one that claims genius-level IQ?

Because quoting the oversimplistic relation does not show an even simple understanding of economics, or even basic logic...

That's more than a bit unfair.

I think Bri's shown himself to be a fairly bright guy, even if I usually disagree with him.

While I agree that it's oversimplistic, I don't think it indicates a complete non-understanding of economics or logic. It's the sort of thing that looks like it should make sense. And just because it ignores the other factors doesn't mean that the other factors were responsible for all of it.

Now, using Frist as a source ... ;)

[Karl J. Barnes]

If I find it, can I keep a billion?

Only if no one comes to claim it. You know the rules, you have to post it up for two weeks and no one claims it, its yours.

[Crowley]

If I find it, can I keep a billion?
I already called dibs...