Menifee Tea Party - Tax Revolt

tea party tax revoltTea Parties are taking place all over the USA this April 15th as a show of revolt against the massive spending the federal government has embarked on.

Menifee is having one too.

It's being organized through Facebook, so if you have a Facebook account, you can sign up for it here...

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=65648873445&ref=nf

Jackie Stuart, who's organizing this thing, will be watching this Facebook group to see how many people join in on it. If there's less than 200 people by April 15th, she'll move it to Temecula and join with them.

The Tea Party will be a bunch of people standing along Newport Rd, between Evans Rd and Bradley Rd, holding signs. She's asking people to make signs that read any of the following, "Signs should display sayings like: Give Me Liberty, Not debt! Don’t Tax Me Bro! Don’t Stimulate, Liberate! Read My Lipstick-No New Bailouts!"

I'd like to see a sign that says, "Give me some too!"

Personally, I think it's a good idea to have a tax revolt. You can't be a free man if you're deeper in debt to Uncle Sam. But it's nothing new; the Libertarian Party have been holding nationwide tax revolts on April 15 every year since the 1970s. What's taken conservatives so long to get with the program?




43 Comments:

  1. Good greif, we should have had a revolt when Geo took us into a unnessecary war where we lost 4000+ American lives. You guys had the last eight years to do things your way and look what happened. Your out!

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are absolutely correct! I am all for the tax revolt but lets revolt against sending more troops to Afghanistan...enough is enough...American lives and billions of US dollar gone. Tea party and Tax revolt... come on people.. wake up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How ironic... a tax revolt lining city streets... built with taxpayer money.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah, and how many of those protestors will put their money where their mouth is and not pay their taxes this year?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with the points posted by the blogger on 4/4/09 at 11:13 a.m. Remember, Democratic President Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Republican George Bush with the assistance of the Republican controlled U.S. Congress created an economic mess over eight years that President Obama and the Democratic Congress are trying to correct. Thus far, after nearly 2.5 months of the Obama Presidency, the stock market has made its biggest gains since 1933. Are the protesters going to rail against the strengthening economy after eight years of Republican control?

    ReplyDelete
  6. What country do you live in? Our economy is the worst it's been in years. Our job loss is the worst it's been in years. Our taxes are the highest it's been in years and our freedom is being taken away bit by bit forcing us closer and closer to socialism. Obama and his congress needs to re-read the constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Your freedom is being taken away as we get closer to socialism? How about when our freedom was taken away with the hilariously named Patriot Act?

    ReplyDelete
  8. To the bloggers on 4/4/09 at 10:52 p.m. and 4/5/09 at 12:28 a.m., have you read the news over the past two weeks? Surely, you know that President Clinton left office with a budget surplus and President Bush left office with a record budget deficit. Of course, there are still job losses as a result of the Bush Administration mishandling of the economy. However, the stock market has made the biggest increases since 1933. This fact was stated in the press only a couple of days ago.

    For both of you, please read instead of name calling. It took President Roosevelt, a democrat to implement policies to keep the Depressiion from getting worse and the collapse of the United States from years of Republican controll of the government and the failed economic theory of laissez faire.

    The same situation is true today. It will take the same type of measures to keep the severe economic downturn from going into a 1930s type of Depression.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Your freedom is being taken away as we get closer to socialism? How about when our freedom was taken away with the hilariously named Patriot Act?"

    I completely agree. I never said Bush didn't have a hand in this. Don't put words in my mouth. This isn't about parties. People and politicians need to get over that and go back to following the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  10. After President Hubert Hoover, a Republican, didn't establish economic policies after the 1929 economic crash but relied on Laissiez Faire philosophy to let the economy correct itself. The economy didn't correct itself. So, Hoover finally decided to draw up plans for government intervention but it was too late. He was not relected due to the deepening depression.

    President Roosevelt was elected such as Obama was elected to do something about the economy. Roosevelt immediately tackled the economy under the cries of socialism and communism hurled at him by the Republicans. It can be argued that Roosevelt kept the country from economic collapse and perhaps from Fascism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Worst economy in years, two wars that have been mismanaged, funding for infrastructure is 30 years behind, stem cell research was delayed, gays continue to have their civil rights spit on, and half of all Americans lack health insurance, etc...yet all the cons can complain about is tax increases? Have you ever stopped to THINK about how we got here. 30 years of faulty conservative ideology and nobody calling our politicians on it. Yes Clinton left us in a very good place, but he also chose to neglect many issues that could have helped us aleviate the present day hardships. We have to spend now, because we have failed to spend in the past, except on wars, corporate welfare, international "aid", etc...
    Feel free to stand on a street corner looking like a moron. It is your right and you should always be willing to step forth and speak your mind. If the thinking people of America had stepped up 9 years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess. But we are, so what are we to do. Tax cuts have never, I repeat NEVER, created stimulus. Not 70 years ago, not now. I am willing to pay more in taxes if I leave your children and my children a better country to live in. Yes our children will probably pay more in taxes, but if we can contain the party of no, from creating any more damage, our children will have a country they can be proud of. By the way, the constant use of the word "socialism" only makes the said individuals look naive and idiotic. Our nation needs to balance the right of corporations to make money honestly, while providing the services our society needs to become stronger. The free market isn't what made this country strong. It was the middle class, the working class. The blood, sweat and tears of those whose lives did not center on the stock market, but on their own daily jobs. Teachers, construction workers, bricklayers, cops, small business owners, etc... When America turned it's back on the working class, they turned their back on those who made this country what it is. We have made this mess, now it is time to bite the bullet, take our medicine, and deal with the pain. It won't result in socialism, but the priorities of America are changing. The tax hating, government hating, Reagan worshiping conservative is a thing of the past. Feel free to stand on a street corner with your signs. You are doing it for yourself. Not your country or anyone else. Just yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  12. To the previous poster "Amen to that"!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Most of you posters have just enough propaganda to justify your positions. The facts, however, are that over the last 6 months the government has decided to spend more money that we have since the founding of the Republic COMBINED. Obama and Congress (sans Republican support, BTW) has increased the deficit more in the last 8 weeks than GWB did over the last 8 years, as if that wasn't bad enough.

    Again, this isn't about political parties, but we should have our facts straight. Bush and the GOP have their share of blame, and they spent too much and squandered their time in power, but from what I see on U-Tube, it was Barney Frank and his friends saying that Fanny and Freddie were not in need of more regulation at a time when GOP was calling for more. It's on video, there's no denying it. Blaming the GOP and cheering for Democrats is just ignorant.

    The purpose of the "Tax Revolt" is basically because we believe the State and Federal governments need to stop spending money, especially in a economic downturn, and start cutting spending. Our taxes just went up dramatically in California, and we are spending money at the federal level at an astronomical rate. TRILLIONS of dollars. It's irresponsible and immoral, and it's very similar to the way things went when the Roman Empire collapsed.

    If you love your freedom, stand up and take control of your Government, before the Government takes control of you through excessive taxes. They will own you otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous, April 06, 2009 10:42 PM:

    Your post is so filled with inaccuracies, I can't even pick one to challenge you on. OK, wait, here's one:

    "The free market isn't what made this country strong. It was the middle class, the working class."

    Can you tell me, please, in which vacuous environment the middle class, the working class made this country great? We, the middle class, do our work in a Free Market, Capitalist Society.

    If there is no Free Market, you work for the Government. The government itself produces NOTHING. Government takes money from the FREE Market, through taxes. It doesn't produce wealth. The markets CREATE wealth, businesses produce products, people are employed by businesses, and receive their wealth from their work, they take their earned income home and spend it on products so that companies who sell the products can make more to sell and employ more people.

    Clinton left a budget 'surplus' only because the GOP congress made him. That was part of their Contract With America - a balanced budget.

    After 9/11, the market tanked, and ever since then had been gradually recovering until last spring when banks started failing. They started failing because of corruption and government mismanagement - Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the gang. Do some research... Check U-Tube, the video is there for all to see, or ignore as the case may be.

    This is just a sample of the folly you put forth as a post. I would not even comment on it, except that I'm afraid many who are posting in this thread may believe your smoke and mirrors rant.

    You seem to lack basic facts about how our economy works, and the nature of the free market system that has made America the greatest country on the planet. You should also get a little education on forms of government. Socialism is synonymous with "Total Government Control" and is on the same side of the spectrum as Communism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, Dictatorships and Oligarchies.

    Forms Of Government

    WE JUST WANT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC BACK.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous
    Do your mom's mind that you're still living in their basements?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jeff, before you attack others for their lack of knowledge, you may want to understand what you are actually talking about. No , socialism doesn't equate to total governmental control. You should have learned that in day one of your government classes. Communism has never existed. It was a term used by politicians and fear-mongers to create havoc in the US and around the world. The weak of mind fell for it, and still do. Fascism, totalitarianism, etc... have existed and still do, but neither are the same as Socialism.Yes we are going to spend money, lots of it in fact, but W spent money on fake wars and corporate welfare. The middle class got nothing. Oh by the way, when the middle class is strong, the economy is strong. They are interrelated. The US is not, nor have we ever been pure Capitalist. We also have never had a truly free market. The government has been subsidizing businesses, big and small for years, That my friend isn't the free market. As for Clinton and the GOP, most of the policies that led to the budget surplus were passed, BEFORE the GOP gained control in the house. The GOP did very little to affect the surplus in a positive way. To be fair though, Clinton opened doors for corporations to move their jobs to cheaper foreign lands, and his policies led to todays housing crisis, with W's help. You are right about government mismanagement leading to the current financial crisis. The government knocked down every single safety net and regulation and gave the corporate bankers the freedom to do whatever they wanted to, free from regulation. Reagan, Bush I and II, and Clinton were all responsible. You are right, I hope people see through all the smoke and mirrors. Especially the ones you put up. h

    ReplyDelete
  17. No tax cut has ever created stimulus, or bettered our lives, or strengthened our nation militarily or socially, yet some of you people think that tax cuts are a solution. A solution to what. All I hear from many conservatives are the same rhetorical argument that they have spouted for years, with nothing but negative results on our nation to show for it. The conservatives aren't starting a revolution, you missed the revolution. The election results on Nov.4, and the continuing high approval marks for our President show that individuals, intellectuals, blue collar workers, etc... already started the revolution. A revolution against the antiquated ideals that Republicans have spouted with no actual results to show for it. Over 50% of Americans lack health insurance, the average pay for the middle class has stayed stagnant for the last thirty years, while the upper 2% has seen their income grow by 800%. We are fighting two wars that have made our nation more vulnerable, and have cost over 4000 good Americans their lives. I think the two party system is important, but if conservatives continue the same rhetoric that many people have stated on these blogs, then the sooner modern conservatism is crushed and destroyed, the sooner a new, relevant, and socially responsible conservatism can grow.

    ReplyDelete
  18. We'll be joining up with the Temecula Tea Party at the duck pond-11:00 am to 1:00pm.
    Bring your signs!

    ReplyDelete
  19. So are you protestingthe fact that most, if not all, of the people who show up today are having their taxes lowered through Obama's plan? Or are you protesting the fact that even with the raising of taxes on the rich, they will still pay less than when Reagan left office. Are you bitter that our previous administration spent over a trillion dollars on two wothless wars and you didn't speak up. We also won't get anything back for that trillion+, except for 4,000+ dead heroes. We have taxation with representation, we are no more socialistic now than we were under Bush, the rich will stay rich, poor will stay poor. What exactly are you protesting again?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Fox News, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich. You don't get more grassroot than that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This isn't about Bush vs. Obama. When are you people going to realize that? Both of them have made huge mistakes and many of us were voicing our opinions by emailing and calling our congress members and the White House. How do you know what we did or didn't do? But in the past 3 months things have gotten bad....fast. Much faster than anyone could believe. More and more people are realizing that our freedoms are being stripped away and that our gov't is NOT following the Constitution. The spending is out of control, the tax hikes to pay for that spending is out of control. The gov't forcing states and companies to take these bailouts is out of control. That is what we are protesting.

    And let me just say we had a turn out of around 1500-2000 people yesterday, normal everyday Americans. You can't get more grass roots than that.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What is funny is that nothing of what you stated is true, other than things are bad now. Most, if not all, of those who were at the tea parties are going to see their taxes lowered. The upper 2% will see their taxes increased, but they will still be lower than they were when Reagan left office. In fact, they are being "raised" to pre Bush tax cut level. A 3% increase on the upper 2% of Americans does not equate to tyranny. My argument, other than the fact that most of the teabaggers have no idea what they are actually protesting other than right wing conspiracy theories and faulty economics, is where the hell were all of you when bush was spending a trillion+ on unjustified wars and tax cuts for the upper 2%. Where were all of you? Why do you only protest when a politician decides to do things that will help the middle class and poor. When the rich, corporations, etc... benefit none of you seem to find your voice, but when a someone enters the office, decides to attempt to tackle the true problems in America, ignorance wins out and all people can do is claim "communism", "fascism", "socialism", etc... Some of you may have protested when the previous administration spent money like it was growing on trees, but most didn't. A spare me the "it wasn't about Republican vs Democrat" garbage. That was exactly what it was about. Republicans can spend money hand over fist, as long as they tell you they are for small government and lower taxes. Obama isn't a savior, a hero, or anything else some may think. He is a man who is attempting to tackle the issues that wear away the fabric of our nation: poverty, unemployment, corporate greed, health insurance, etc... The Boston Tea party was not about paying taxes. It was about taxation without representation. You have taxation with representation. You may not like the representative, but that is the nature of the political beast. Fox News, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich, and their respective organizations created the "tea parties" filling people's heads with continuous rhetoric. All of this while the Republicans in Washington contribute absolutely nothing. No new ideas. No relevant or realistic ideas. Just the same old Reagan era dreams/lies. Republicans used to be a party that could be respected and I truly believe that the small percentage of Repubs that showed yesterday are the psychotic fringe element. Republicans need to go back to the drawing board and recreate the party. I support your rights to protest, but the tea party didn't make you guys look like patriots or revolutionaries. It made you look extremist and irrelevant, which is sad considering the history of the party pre Reagan.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 900-1000 "normal everyday" citizens showed up yesterday. What was even more telling though was the millions of "normal everyday " citizens who didn't show up and thought all of you were wrong. In 1773, 46% of the population of Boston showed. Less than 1% of the local population showed yesterday. That was the true protest.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Around the country there were around 1 million people who protested. And personally, I don't care if you think I'm wrong, or crazy. I did something that I felt was right and I don't need you or anyone else to justify what I did.

    I think both parties need to be rebuilt but how does having a peaceful protest make us look like extremists?

    Personally, I don't know any tea party that was created because of Fox News, Newt Gingrich or anyone else. I think you've been watching a little too much of CNN.
    This was brought on by people who are fed up with the gov't both PAST and PRESENT. For me personally this has nothing to do with repubs vs dems, you can believe me or not. This has to do with our country going down hill.

    Obama has spent more then Bush, he's created bigger gov't control. Where are all the dems who were so up in arms over Bush's spending and big gov't policies?

    ReplyDelete
  25. 1.The government has grown more under the last three Republican presidents than they did with the last three democratic presidents. The federal deficits have climbed higher under Republicans than Democrats. Obama has spent/will spend a trillion dollars investing in health care, infrastructure, etc... But the key is that the are investments. They will return tax dollars so the trillion dollars will be paid off through the investments (job creation, tax money, etc..)created through the said investment. The trillion dollars spent by bush cannot be recouped. It was/will be a trillion dollars lost, and as stated by a previous poster, the only thing we will get back for it are the lost lives of 4500+ soliders who desrved better than what the Bush admin gave them.
    2. Why do I think the tea parties made the "protesters look like extremists? Here is a small example of the various messages being sent at various tea parties:

    "Tax payers are the Jews to Obama's ovens".
    "Homey don't play that".
    " Obama was not bowing, he was sucking jewels".
    "Obama's plan: White Slavery"
    " Out tax dollars given to Hamas to kill Christians, Jews and Americans. Thanks Mr. O".
    "Obama, What you talkin bout Willis?"
    " Obama loves baby killing".
    "Barack Obama, the new face of Hitler".
    -A picture of a black figure resembeling Obama slitting the throat of Uncle Sam.
    " Barack Obama: where was he really born?"
    "Real Americans only bow before God".
    "Obama= Hitler".
    "Speak for yourself Obama, we are a Christian nation".
    "Obama. Socialist pig".
    While most didn't lower themselves to the complete stupidity of the people above, the fact that protesters around the US thought things like the statements above were acceptable, and nobody stopped these wack jobs makes all of the protestors look extremist, whether they actually are or not.

    Spending isn't bad, unless the money is wasted. Bush wasted money, Obama is attempting to fix thirty years of bad leadership and it will cost money, alot of money. But ten years from now, are nation will be a stronger nation, nationally, internationally, economically, and socially.

    -Fox news advertised tea parties over 200 times in ten days.
    -When interviewing participants, many stated that they heard about the tea parties through Fox News.
    - The two biggest contributors to the tea parties were neo-con organizations run by Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey.

    You may not have realized it, but all of the above had their hands all over the tea parties.

    You can claim all you want that it wasn't about political parties, but it was. Nobody was upset over the massive spending of the Bush administration. Nobody acknowledged that the vast majority of people at the party would see their taxes cut. Nobody acknowledged the fact that the upper 2% of Americans would see their taxes raised to the level they were at under Clinton, which is still lower than they were when Reagan left office.

    The tea parties were all about political parties. All you have to do is open your euyes and pay attention. You'll see it.

    I will support any American protesting, whether it is anti-war or protesting unfair policies. But the outright ignorance, venom, and at times racist viewpoints of some protesters were downright embarassing.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oh so you are generalizing a huge group of people because of a few people with bad signs? Well that definitely proves your point then. I'd like to see pics of these signs. I saw coverage of many of these tea parties and didn't see signs like that at any. I did see a few anti-Obama sings at the Temecula tea party and a few at other tea parties but nothing like the ones you posted, although I do like the "Speak for yourself Obama, we are a Christian nation" and some of the others of that sort. That doesn't make someone stupid though, just because you don't feel the same.

    You know, you keep throwing Fox News out there but it seems to me you get most of your news from CNN and MSNBC. Because those were the only channels I saw that promoted all the negatives of the tea party. They tried to make them out to be anti-Obama or racist. Sorry, that's not how it really was. And I know because I was there.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I watch Fox, msnbc, cnn, bbc, and others. I read George Will, Paul Krugman and others of various political beliefs. I actually try to be informed. The truth is usually in the middle, but all of the above sources can hav relevant and interesting arguments, whether I agree or not. Yes the signs I spoke of are stupid and ignorant, and if you haven't seen them then you are not opening your eyes and doing your research. I made it very clear that I didn't believe that these were the norm of the protesters, what I said was that those protesters and the lack of action by those who allowed those ignorant statements to represent them, made all of the protesters look bad. By the way the "...we are a Christian nation" sign was not stupid for it's endorsement of Christianity, it is because the statement is factually false, yet it's blindly believed by many. That is what is stupid, or blatantly ignorant. Anti-Obama signs are expected, but comparisons to Hitler, et al are just plain idiotic. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, BBC, etc... are not what made the protesters look ignorant and racist. It was SOME of the protesters that made all of the protesters look racist and ignorant. The tea parties weren't in the vein of the original tea party. It was groups of individuals who lost power they held for eight years and now feel as though what they believe is under attack, which it is. The Republicans are taking the brunt of criticism, most deserved, some not. Add the lack of action by any Republican in Washington, and you have a party is disarry. Republicans have a tremondous amount of fear running through them now, just as Democrats had a tremendous amount of fear about the country during the last eight years. Fear was the underlying factor on Wed., not any actual understanding of what is happening and why it is happening.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Well I think we're going to have to agree to disagree because the way you feel about Repubs and how you perceive them is exactly how I perceive dems. I think they are the ones who are scared. But I do agree with you that the republican party is in disarray, as is the democratic party. Both parties suck, imo. We need to throw them both out.

    I agree that the signs comparing Obama are stupid, yet those same things were said about Bush so it is done by people in both parties. One is NOT better than they other and their are ignorant people in both parties. There were worse things said about Bush during his eight years, were those things okay then?
    I do not need to open my eyes to anything. You don't know me, and you don't know what I believe, what I research or what news I watch. You are generalizing me just as you are generalizing everyone at the tea parties. Sad. I don't think I'm the one that needs to open my eyes.

    IMO, there is proof that we are a Christian nation and that we were founded on it. But that is a whole other argument and I really don't care to argue it with you. I can believe what I'd like to believe based on research I've done and you can believe what you'd like to believe.

    Like I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree. That's the beauty of this country. We have that right...at least for now.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Our forefathers being christian doesn't mean we were created under christian values. Jefferson, Franklin, Paine and Adams all believed in God. None believed in religion. All thought that religion and all of it's "Voodoo" was used to control individuals. Jefferson and Paine in particular, stated exlicitly the importance of seperating religion and government.
    You are absolutly right about protests during Bush's era. Bush deserved every ounce of criticism lobbed at him, but comparing Bush to Hitler, which was done on a regular basis by some anarchist groups was an unfair analogy. Both sides can be guilty of it, but it is unacceptable either way. Nobody assumed anything about you, YOU generalized, I responded too it. If you dislike Democrats so be it. If you are wealthy, it would be expected. If you are middle class or poor, your misguided. The CBO relesed findings today that the economic gap between the rich ,middle class and poor grew at the largest rate seen over the last thirty years, ie, 3 Republican presidents and a democrat who was practically a Republican. The after tax income of the upper 2% is 23% higher than the middle class. Even more disturbing is the upper 2% has after tax income 72.7 times that of the lower 5%. The rates are the highest since 1929. Now nobody is claiming that the rich should lower themselves to our status, but asking the rich to pay for an extra 3%. It isn't tyrannical, it isn't socialism, communism or anything else. Republicans have done everything they could to ensure the rich of their money, on the backs of the middle class and poor, and Repubs did an excellent job of it. Democrats are weak for allowing it to happen, but then again many of the demos fall into that upper 2%. Conservatism is a scam, believed and worshiped by those who don't realize you have been getting hosed for years by those who try to conserve your cash. Obama grew up poor, and knows what it feels like. He knows that the upper 2% have always gotten off easy. Money has been hid for years, to the tune of 100 billion last year alone, including 11.7 billion that went unpaid in California alone. Do the math. If callifornia picked up that 11.7 billion that goes unpaid everyyear, maybe you wouldn't have to make up the slack. Yet tens of thousands of people protested the unfair taxation of taxpayers. Ignore the fact that you and all other individual picketers all will see their taxes lowered thanks to Obama, so who were you fighting for. It wasn't for the middle class or poor. You picketed and drew attention to the unfair taxation of the rich, the upper 2%. Republicans haven't cared about the middle class and poor for thirty years, so why does the middle class protect them? I don't know you, or beliefs, religion, sexuality, or anything else and I really don't care about your individual choices. What I do care about is the way my low middle class Americans, including you, are treated by our government. The growing dispairity between the haves and have nots is significantly more important than the 3% jump in taxes for the rich. Middle class unimployment, lack of health insurance for over 50% of Americans, and the continuing sensless war in Iraq are larger issues than the 3% tax increase on the upper 2%. I care about the country we will leave our children. The country ten years from now will be better than the one we have lived in for eight years.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Do you really think that the amount of money Obama has spent and promised in Stimulus bills and bailouts that we will be in a better postion? You think your taxes won't change? How do you think he, I mean WE, are going to pay for this then?

    Obama may have grown up poor when he was little, but he also went to the private schools growing up. I can't even afford for my kids to go to private school. I don't think he was as poor as most American's. And now he's a multi- billionare. He IS the top 2%. Seems to me, by the things he's done in the last 3 months, he doesn't remember those years of being "poor".

    ReplyDelete
  31. PETER FERRARA: Obama Is So Clueless About Federal Taxes

    By Peter Ferrara
    Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy, Institute for Policy Innovation

    Yesterday President Obama said that average Americans:

    “. . . need a government that is working to create jobs and opportunity for them, rather than simply giving more and more to those at the very top in the false hope that wealth trickles down . . .We start from the simple premise that we should reduce the tax burden on working people. . .”

    Obama presents here a false caricature of America’s tax policy in the time before he became president, with tax cuts supposedly going only to the rich, while working people and the middle class bore the tax burden.

    Clearly, somebody thought of cutting taxes for working people long before Obama showed up.

    Before Obama became president, the top 1% of income earners already paid 40% of the total federal income taxes. The top 5% of the population the president is targeting for tax hikes already paid 60% of federal income taxes.

    By contrast, the bottom 40% of income earners, who lefties like Obama often refer to as “working people” or the “working class,” as a group already paid no income taxes. Instead, they received net payments from the tax system equal to 3.8% of total income taxes. In other words, the bottom 40% paid negative 3.8% of total federal income taxes.

    In addition, the middle 20% of income earners, the actual middle class, paid just 4.7% of total federal income taxes, before Obama even won the election.

    These relative tax burdens were actually the result of Reagan Republican supply side economics that began with Reagan and Jack Kemp in the 1970s and 1980s, continued through Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America, and further played out with the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Reagan and his Republicans in fact had already abolished income taxes on Obama’s “working people” or “working class” when Obama came into office, and had almost abolished them for the actual “middle class.”

    It was, in fact, Ronald Reagan who first proposed in the 1970s the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that has done so much to reduce income tax liabilities for lower income people. As president, he cut federal income tax rates across the board for all taxpayers by 25%. He also indexed the tax brackets for all taxpayers to prevent inflation from pushing workers into higher tax brackets.

    In the Tax Reform Act of 1986, he reduced the federal income tax rate for moderate income workers all the way down to 15%. That act also doubled the personal exemption, shielding more income from taxation for everybody.

    Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America adopted a child tax credit of $500 per child that reduced the tax liabilities of lower income people by a higher percentage than for higher income people. President Bush doubled that credit to $1,000 per child, and made it refundable so that low-income people who do not even pay $1,000 in federal income taxes could still get the full credit. Bush also adopted a new lower tax bracket for the lowest income workers of 10%, reducing their federal income tax rate by 33%. He cut the top rate for the highest income workers by just 11.6%, from 39.6% to 35%.

    These are the tax cuts adopted over the last 30 plus years that brought us to the point where federal income taxes were already abolished for the working poor and what some people term the working class, and almost abolished for the middle class. Clearly, somebody thought of cutting taxes for working people long before Obama showed up.

    What Obama has added to the mix, his tax cut for 95% of Americans, turned out to be a miserable $400 per worker tax credit, less than $8 per week. That tax credit actually will not reduce taxes at all for the bottom 40% of income earners who were already not paying federal income taxes, because you cannot cut taxes for someone who is not paying taxes.

    Obama’s people again tried to confuse this issue yesterday, with White House economist Jared Bernstein saying that while it is true that these workers do not pay income taxes, they do pay payroll taxes. Yes, it is true they pay payroll taxes, but Obama is not cutting anyone’s payroll taxes! His tax cut is a $400 per worker income tax credit that does not cut payroll taxes, and cannot and does not reduce income taxes for anyone who does not pay income taxes.

    Obama also said yesterday that his $400 per worker tax credit “will save or create over half a million jobs.” But it will actually save or create exactly zero jobs. That is because borrowing $400 from the private sector to give someone else $400 does not add anything to the economy on net. Moreover, the tax credit does nothing to change the incentives that govern the economy. To change the incentives to save, invest, start businesses, expand businesses, create jobs, and produce, you have to reduce tax rates, not send workers $400 checks. That is what Reagan did, and that is why his economic program created a 25 year economic boom.

    Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation, among other posts. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President

    ReplyDelete
  32. No matter what "tax break" I supposedly get for being in the "middle class" that won't pay back the amount I now have to pay in sales tax, which Californians are now lucky to be the highest at.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Unspinning the Right: the Rich Don't Really Bear Most of the Tax Burden

    By Paul Buchheit,

    Anytime the subject of taxes comes up, we're sure to hear the standard argument from the conservative side: the wealthy pay most of the income taxes. Rush Limbaugh said it with great emphasis: "The top 1 percent is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50 percent!"

    Indeed, according to the Tax Foundation, a 'nonpartisan educational organization,' the richest 1 percent in our country already pay more in income taxes than the bottom 90 percent. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office reports that the richest 20 percent paid nearly 90 percent of all federal taxes in 2005. On the surface it seems that this group pays more than its fair share of taxes. On the surface. And only when looking at federal income taxes in isolation -- there's the trick.

    Let's take a closer look. According to a study by The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the top 1 percent paid about 5 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid approximately 10 percent -- twice as much proportionally. Referring again to U.S. Congressional Budget Office figures, the top 1 percent pays just under 2 percent of their incomes toward social security, while the bottom 50 percent pays about 9 percent. The same source shows that the bottom 50 percent is paying about 2 percent of their incomes on federal excise taxes (e.g., tobacco, alcohol and gasoline), a negligible expense for the people at the top. The scheduled Bush tax cuts for 2009 and 2010 will chop another 1-2 percent off the taxes of the very rich.

    So while the top 1 percent of Americans paid 23 percent of their incomes in federal income taxes in 2006, and the bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent, when you look at all taxes a different picture emerges. At this point total taxes for the very rich are 29 percent of their incomes (23 percent + 5 percent + 2 percent - 1 percent). Total taxes for the poor are 24 percent of their incomes (3 percent + 10 percent + 9 percent + 2 percent).

    But there's more. Few of us would disagree with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights that home heating and water are essential services, or at the very least necessary expenses. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the American Gas Association concur that low-income households pay over 20 percent of their incomes for utilities, while high-income households pay less than 4 percent.

    So total taxes and utilities for the very rich consume 33 percent of their incomes. Total taxes and utilities for the poor consume 44 percent of their incomes. The conclusion is similar to that reached by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

    It's even worse if one considers the high-interest mortgage loans, auto loans, payday loans, refund anticipation loans, and medical debt loans that primarily burden low-income families.

    And there's important context here as well: the richest Americans are grabbing an ever- larger piece of the country's economic pie. In 1972, the top 1 percent of Americans took in 8.7 percent of the nation's earned income, but that figure skyrocketed to more than 20 percent in 2006, while wages stagnated for nine out of ten U.S. tax-payers. Recently, The Wall Street Journal reported that "the richest 1 percent of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929."

    So who's paying the bills? Based on the cold facts of statistics and percentages, the poor are paying a greater than average share. Based on the struggle to stretch a paycheck to support a family, the lowest-income members of our country are being pushed to the limit.



    Paul Buchheit is a professor on the faculty of DePaul University's School of New Learning.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Oh and by the way, I'm curious. Did you sit by and not voice your concern when Bush was in office for the past 8 years? Or did you speak out. I'm guessing you spoke out. Does that make you a poor sport because the other side won? Does that make you stupid? Just because "the other side won" doesn't mean I have to shut my mouth and not voice my concern over things being done.

    ReplyDelete
  35. When I Googled Mr. Ferrara's name I was a mazed to find that he is loved and adored by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and other fair and balanced neo-cons. We might as well use Ted Kennedy as fair and balanced research. The article is flawed at best, which was the reponse from most non-partisan economists to the article, which can aslo be googled by the way. You will have to wade through 25 pages of neo-con blogs, but hey who said research was easy. Gingrich had very little to do with the surplus. Most of the tax adjustments were done prior to 1996. The child tax credits were obtained between a compromise between Gingrich and Clinton. Both knew they would accomplish nothing without each other, so the two compromised. The child credits were already in place, but Gingrich helped raise the amount. What I found interesting was that they article never mentioned that Reagan raised taxes on the upper 2% six separate times during his last term. By the way, Obama actually isn't raising taxes on the rich. He is just rolling back the Bush tax cuts, so the rich will be paying no more than they did during Clinton and Reagan.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Why are we adding in utilities? I thought we were just speaking about taxes?

    "The same source shows that the bottom 50 percent is paying about 2 percent of their incomes on federal excise taxes (e.g., tobacco, alcohol and gasoline), a negligible expense for the people at the top."- from your article

    Obama just raised the tobacco tax so he just broke one promise, anyone who makes under $250,000 would have no tax increase. Not one type of tax. Yet I'm pretty sure there are many smokers out there who make under $250, 000.

    another quote from the article:
    "And there's important context here as well: the richest Americans are grabbing an ever- larger piece of the country's economic pie. In 1972, the top 1 percent of Americans took in 8.7 percent of the nation's earned income, but that figure skyrocketed to more than 20 percent in 2006, while wages stagnated for nine out of ten U.S. tax-payers. Recently, The Wall Street Journal reported that "the richest 1 percent of Americans in 2006 garnered the highest share of the nation's adjusted gross income for two decades, and possibly the highest since 1929."

    So what! If those people worked for that money legally, there is nothing wrong with that!

    "The U.S. Congressional Budget Office reports that the richest 20 percent paid nearly 90 percent of all federal taxes in 2005. On the surface it seems that this group pays more than its fair share of taxes. On the surface. And only when looking at federal income taxes in isolation -- there's the trick."

    And. It says right there they pay 90% of all federal taxes. Who cares about their utilities, loans, rent, etc. That's none of anyone's business as long as they are paying their taxes.

    ReplyDelete
  37. And when I looked up Mr. Bucheit's name I found that he had donated quite a large sum of money to..........wow, Obama for America. Big surprise.

    Look, the numbers can be skewed either way to show your point and mine. Either way the tax code needs an overhaul.

    IMO, people shouldn't be penalized to pay more because they make more, that is un-American. You can't force someone to give their money over for the greater good of others. That too is un-American. Should they give money to those less fortunate? Absolutely. But they should have a say in where their money goes. They shouldn't have to make up for the mistakes our gov't made. Obviously streets need to be paved, bridges need to be made so we need to pay for those things, I understand that, but IMO the way things are now isn't the way to go about getting that money.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thomas Jefferson believed that America would no longer be America when the wealth of the nation was consolidated into the hands of the few. Thr rich should get taxed higher and we it isn't unamerican to do it. Allowing large segments of actual Americans to live without health insurance is unAmerican. Starting a war that will cost our children trillions wthout a chance to recoup a dollar is unAmerican. The fact that their is one starving child in our land is unAmerican. Spare me the the rich pay 90% so they pay enough garbage. The rich also have benefits to living in America that they would get nowhere else in the world. The sad thing is many of us have no problem that the income of the upper 2% has risen 800% in the last thirty years while the income level for the middle class has barely moved, and the poor, well who cares right. The rich pays 90% of the taxes, but that 90% equates to a significantly less percentage of their actual income than it does for the middle class. When we pay taxes, it takes a significantly larger chunk of our overall income. But you know what I changed my mind, you are all right. The rich pay way too much, after all we all want fairness, so we shouldn't raise taxes on the rich. We should raise it on the rest of us. Thank you for opening my eyes you are right. Taxes are too high for the rich, the middle class needs to be taxed higher. The $300 we got, on average, from the Bush tax cuts and the $400 that Socialist Obama is giving us doesn't matter now, as some of you have said, so we should give it back. That way it will lessen the burden that the rich now carries. We should cancel Social Security too. Not in the future, but now. After all, if all the elderly and baby boomers didn't save all the money thaey needed, that is their problem, right? Sounds brilliant, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  39. The tax-day tea parties are not about political parties or about the president being black, as most of the "main stream" media reported. In fact, they are the only high-profile bi-partisan effort happening in America today.

    The current leadership in Washington is not bi-partisan, since it excludes any opinions that don't agree. That's called Fascism. Look it up.

    People came out to protest on April 15 because they believe the federal (and state) government is out of control and has exceeded its limits under the Constitution. They believe that their 'representatives' in DC and in Sacramento, for our part, do not listen to them anymore, and are taking our country down a road which will destroy our nation's and our children's future.

    The reason we are doing this now and not 'during the last 8 years' is manifold, but the main reason is that the $700,000,000 TARP program started under Bush had us very angry, and we were hoping Pres. Obama would not continue such reckless spending - but he has, and continues to follow horrible economic policies that have never worked anywhere except to gather power to the powerful and money to the oligarchy. That is where we are headed if we don't oppose it. The media is already talking about the 'ruling class' and the 'working class'. These are Marxist terms that refer to and propagate an 'us and them' scenario as opposed to "We The People". This has been going on for 100 years, and transcends political parties.

    Please, put your political bias aside and fight for America's Constitution before it is too late.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Jeff, there are fourteen defining characteristics used to determine fascism. You fall prey to exactly what you claim to despise. You use propaghanda, fear, and of course partisanship, to paint yourself as level headed. You are partisan, so don't try to paint yourself as otherwise. The 14 characteristics are as follows:

    1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

    2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

    3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

    4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
    domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

    5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

    6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

    7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

    8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

    9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

    10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

    11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

    12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

    13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

    14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

    What is scary is that America does fall into some of these catergories, thanks mostly to the miserable leadership and paranoia that have plauged are nation for the last eight years. Also notice alot of what "modern" Republicans believe, who by no means are examples of true Republicans, falls into about 11 of the criteria. Some Democrats are just as guilty, but your description as the present state of our country as being fascist is just plain ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Bush- $975 billion for "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    -The core defense Budget was $612 billion per year up 33%(not war related expenses).

    _172 Billion per year in corporate welfare under Bush.

    -Bush tripled funding for AIDS relief in Africa to approx. 15 billion( which is good, but I know there are some who may see otherwise).

    -Bush raised the Child tax credit from $600 to $1000 in 2010

    -Bush tax 'cuts" for middle class equate to about $300 a year or $25 per month.

    Contrary to a previous posters statements, Newt Gingrich and the “Contract for America” did very little to contribute to the “surplus”. To be fair, the surplus was created by the usage of the Social Security fund to shore up America’s deficit at the time, which was and still is legal and was used by most Presidents at one time or another over the last 40 years. The surplus also was benefited by the trimming of wasteful spending by the Defense department at the time, but Clinton didn’t recreate the wheel when he balanced the budget. He did most of the “balance budgeting” measures before the Republican majority took over in 1996 and with Republican support. Also, The combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the “Contract with America” promised to eliminate have actually increased spending in those areas by 13%."

    Obama’s current budget spends 664 billion on military spending, raising the Defense budget by 21 billion and that is after some defense cuts are made(see below). It spends 599 billion on all other discretionary spending. If we were truly heading toward “Socialism” the military/Defense budget would be significantly reduced and spending on the other discretionary areas would be the dominant part of the budget.
    - Included in the budget is a little publicized tax exemption for couples who will inherit up to $10 million from paying estate taxes. The amendment, which caters to the top two tenths of one percent of income earners, will cost the nation $91 billion in taxes, per year. By the way, ten Democrats sided with the Republicans to push the amendment into the budget.
    - The Defense budget is also being looked at for signs of wasteful spending including weapons that have never worked, transport vehicles that are ineffective and dangerous, stockpiled nukes, etc… that Robert Gates says will save approximately $50 billion and more efficiently use the money given to the military.

    Now, Obama is spending a significant amount of money and there is obviously risk involved. Inability to monitor and regulate money given to failing banks may cause problems. If states take the money and waste it, as states have a habit of doing, rather than investing it into infrastructure, school construction, etc…, then the tax dollars that will relieve future debt will be minimal.

    The debacle we are in is not just Bush’s fault, even though the vast majority of blame is appropriate, we have had irresponsible spending, tax cuts, and deregulation over the last thirty years or so that have also contributed. The cure is not around the corner, but Obama’s plan, while not perfect, will work if given time. Americans aren’t big on waiting for anything though, so once you get past the rhetoric and fear mongering, time will tell the effectiveness of Obama’s policies.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The point WAS the government works for us! They are printing money, devaluing the money supply. They are spending are children and grandchildren's money! And they want to nationalize the banks.
    It doesn't matter who started it. It matters that it stops.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I meant "our" children and grandchildren.

    ReplyDelete

Menifee 24/7 welcomes comments from readers in response to posts on our website and on our Facebook page. Comments on our website must be submitted through a Google account with the user's full name. No anonymous comments are allowed. On both the website and our Facebook page, use of profanity, personal attacks, statement as fact of things that have not been substantiated, or statements of a generally offensive tone are prohibited.

Loading