July 30th, 2011
By Barry Secrest
While working on an article, head spinning with facts and graphics and charts, I occasionally stumble across articles that are so misleading, they will nearly make you explode in a combination of laughter and anger at the same time. This factcheck.org article is no different. In this case the factchecking liberals, a misnomer if ever there was one, are trying to graphically make the point that the Bush taxcuts did not increase revenues into the Government.
Below is the chart the extends out, rather conveniently, only through the first phase of the Bush taxcuts.
From a November 2010 article in Factcheck.org
Below is factcheck's explanation
GOP Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana made a wildly false supply-side tax claim on ABC’s "This Week" — and repeated it even when disputed by Ronald Reagan’s former budget director, David Stockman:
Pence: David [Stockman] believes that every tax increase equals a revenue increase, but that’s not true. Anybody who is familiar with the historical data from the IRS knows that raising income tax rates will likely actually reduce federal revenues. … So if we raise taxes, the American people are very likely going to — the top 1 percent are going to send less money to Washington, D.C., and that will never get us out of this …
Stockman: I just have to respectfully disagree. … [I]t’s just common sense fact that, when you raise the rates, you get more revenue.
Pence: Raising income tax rates on the top 1 percent will not increase revenues to the federal treasury.
Pence is simply wrong here, as shown by what followed Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, which fell almost entirely on the top 1 percent or 2 percent of earners. In fact, the result was a steady rise in federal revenues that ended only in 2001, the year that the first round of President Bush’s tax cuts took effect.
Unfortunately, Factcheck left out a few facts it would seem. Here is the complete chart from the OMB that shows that Bush's tax cuts did indeed result in a dramatic increase in revenues, but right after 2003 when the cuts had taken full effect:
Factcheck had obviously elected to leave out the rest of the story.
Kinda Makes you go "Hmm"....doesn't it?
An Unchained Malady Of "Deep Doo-Doo" Economics: Rebuttal To Paul Krugman's "Getting To Crazy"
July 28th, 2011
By Barry Secrest
We have been listening to Obama, virtually all of the Liberal Democrats, and Most left-leaning pundits hammer away at both the Republicans and Conservatives with regard to the rich needing to pay "their fair share" for nearly three long years now. And this caustic attempt at class warfare would probably seem beyond fair and reasonable to the average individual on the street, if not simply because it makes the top 25% of all earners sound as if they are essentially paying nothing in taxes. However, when we simply glance at a percentage listing of who pays what into the Federal Government in the form of tax revenues, we can begin to see the real truth elbowing its way to the front of the mob.
This "real truth" speaks to the fact that the top 25% of all American earners or "the wealthy," pay over 86% of America's income tax revenues according to statistics provided by the IRS. This would mean that of the total revenues currently being collected in the form of individual income taxes which are at about $ 900 billion dollars per year, over $ 774 billion comes from those people "who are scolded for not paying their fair share." This also would therefore mean that all of the people that Obama and the Democrats are attempting to rile up over the so called "wealthy" are only paying about $ 126 billion dollars per year in taxes, if any. However, it gets even better from there.
In 2008, the bottom 50% of all taxpayers paid only 2.7 % of America's total tax bill. Which means that of the $900 Billion in revenues collected, the bottom half of all taxpayers paid only $24.3 billion dollars. Even better than that? Since 1980 the amount payable by the bottom 50% has been reduced steadily downward each year from a high of 7% to the current rate of 2.7%.
The question would therefore become "could this progressively lessening taxcode be at the heart of America's true deficit reduction and spending problems?" An even better question would be "why do the Democrats consistently center their arguments on the top end of the bracket when these so-called "wealthy individuals" are the ones who are quite obviously footing the bill for virtually everyone else?
The Democrats and their extreme demagoguery along with their attempts at promoting disingenuous class warfare have been taken to a whole new level, it would seem, especially when they fail to enumerate even these most simplest of truths.
Please view the IRS listing Here
Special thanks to Kevin Whiteman for contributing to this article
July 23rd, 2011
"You Can't have it both ways Bernie"
By Barry Refocus
Senator Bernie Sanders (D)Vermont, An avowed Socialists and populist has provided us with a rather keen teachable moment. Sanders, upon learning from the Fed audit, that over $ 16 trillion was provided to shore up banks the world over, was aghast as are we. But then Sanders goes on to criticize "Socialism for the rich and rugged --and individualism for everyone else." Our point here being that in a nation, if not a world, that has de-evolved into Socialism, this sort of crony-captalism and elite club favoritism has always ruled the day throughout collectivism's history. The leadership will always knee-jerk react to its members of the elite club and will no longer be directed by a people's Congress. Which is precisely what has happened in this case.
But, we would go one step further in pointing out that the reason for America's ongoing massive deficits has an astounding component of favoritism involved, which caters to a specific subset of individuals. These specific individuals are seeing redistributed income that they have done nothing to actually earn, beyond taking breath, come flowing into their homes and personal coiffures, while the rest of us toil in a cloud of building anger.
Once Socialism takes a firm grip on society, it becomes impossible to separate corporate cronyism from a social justice derived effort at redistribution. The oligarchy will then steer funding and credits from the Government to these corporate elites and bottom-feeding couch potatoes creating a loop of wealth stolen from the people and then blithely given to those of both greater wealth and no wealth while crowding out the actual producers being a broad but dwindling middle class.
This, once again, is precisely what we have been seeing as jobless numbers go up and working American's struggles worsen. Below is Sanders article from his website:
The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. "As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."
Among the investigation's key findings is that the Fed unilaterally provided trillions of dollars in financial assistance to foreign banks and corporations from South Korea to Scotland, according to the GAO report. "No agency of the United States government should be allowed to bailout a foreign bank or corporation without the direct approval of Congress and the president," Sanders said.
The non-partisan, investigative arm of Congress also determined that the Fed lacks a comprehensive system to deal with conflicts of interest, despite the serious potential for abuse. In fact, according to the report, the Fed provided conflict of interest waivers to employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans.
For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed's board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed's emergency lending programs.
In another disturbing finding, the GAO said that on Sept. 19, 2008, William Dudley, who is now the New York Fed president, was granted a waiver to let him keep investments in AIG and General Electric at the same time AIG and GE were given bailout funds. One reason the Fed did not make Dudley sell his holdings, according to the audit, was that it might have created the appearance of a conflict of interest.
To Sanders, the conclusion is simple. "No one who works for a firm receiving direct financial assistance from the Fed should be allowed to sit on the Fed's board of directors or be employed by the Fed," he said.
The investigation also revealed that the Fed outsourced most of its emergency lending programs to private contractors, many of which also were recipients of extremely low-interest and then-secret loans.
The Fed outsourced virtually all of the operations of their emergency lending programs to private contractors like JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. The same firms also received trillions of dollars in Fed loans at near-zero interest rates. Altogether some two-thirds of the contracts that the Fed awarded to manage its emergency lending programs were no-bid contracts. Morgan Stanley was given the largest no-bid contract worth $108.4 million to help manage the Fed bailout of AIG.
A more detailed GAO investigation into potential conflicts of interest at the Fed is due on Oct. 18, but Sanders said one thing already is abundantly clear. "The Federal Reserve must be reformed to serve the needs of working families, not just CEOs on Wall Street."
To read the GAO report, click here.