Cold Hard Facts from a Former Fan of the Republican
[QUOTE=Bac Teo;161131]Tui rầu nhứt là [COLOR="#FF0000"]các bác già làm tiền th́ chả đủ về VN thăm con cháu nhưng cứ chửi và sợ Obama tăng thuế sẽ "chết" ḿnh , chưa nói c̣n sợ tới đời con cái phải trả nợ[/COLOR]. Co' cụ c̣n [COLOR="#FF0000"]chửi đổng sao mà nó lấy thuế trong pay check ḿnh nhiều thế[/COLOR]..nhưn g la.i không nghĩ được là do ḿnh chọn cách khấu trừ rồi cuối năm mới tính sổ lại mà đóng hay nhận về... Phần lớn th́ các cụ này nhận về v́ không đủ income để "lo sợ" bị Obama đánh thuế , chưa nói Obama c̣n tặng cho vài ngàn tiền earned income credit... xài chơi... Khổ là không hiểi nên cứ chửi...[/QUOTE]
They didn't do their homework when they spill out such foul accusation. Before whining about the Democrats, they should check out the bills sponsored and supported by the Republican representatives and senators, check out these Republicans' voting records in Congress <--- Public info !
----------------------------------
From [url]http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/deficits-debts-democrats-vs-republicans-us-national-debt-graphs-year-president/[/url]
(David Haggith is the author of the article below. He had voted for Republicans up until the recent years. However, he learned from his own mistakes and switched side after some digging.)
[CENTER][/CENTER][B]Deficits, Debts and Democrats vs Republicans — US national debt in graphs by year and president [/B]
...
In fact, [COLOR="#FF0000"]I’ve voted Republican more often than Democrat[/COLOR]. I did not vote for Clinton or Al Gore. Bear all of that in mind, as you read the following, for [COLOR="#0000FF"]I am writing against my own bias and was surprised by what I learned[/COLOR].
[B]Personal income under Republicans vs Democrats[/B]
Here is a stunning fact in a simple graph:
[img]http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/IncomeGrowthRates1948-2005-1024x768.png[/img]
This graph goes against what I think would be conventional wisdom — that Republicans do a better job with the economy than those taxing, government-worshipping Democrats. Surprisingly, if you look at personal income growth over the last fifty years under each kind of president (Democrat vs Republican), you discover that no matter which income percentile you fall into, you saw your income grow more during Democratic presidential administrations than during Republican administrations.
The other telling thing shown here is that the amount of income growth under Democrats gets better as you move to poorer segments of the population, even though ALL groups experienced greater income growth under Democrats (except for the top five percent) than under Republicans. Here’s what Slate.com has to say in their summary that accompanies the graph …
[INDENT]“Did the United States grow more unequal while Republicans were in power? It sounds crude, but Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels has gone a long way toward proving it. Bartels looked up income growth rates for families at various income percentiles for the years 1948 to 2005, then cross-checked these with whether the president was a Republican or a Democrat. He found two distinct and opposite trends. Under Democrats, the biggest income gains were for people in the bottom 20th income percentile (2.6 percent). The income gains grew progressively smaller further up the income scale (2.5 percent for the 40th and 60thpercentiles, 2.4 percent for the 80th percentile, and so on). [COLOR="#FF0000"]But under Republicans, the biggest income gains were for people in the 95thpercentile (1.9 percent). The income gains grew progressively smaller further down the income scale (1.4 percent for the 80thpercentile, 1.1 for the 60th percentile, etc.[/COLOR])."[/INDENT]
[COLOR="#0000FF"]But here is the aspect of these facts that shines the brightest for Democrats[/COLOR]:
[INDENT][COLOR="#0000FF"]“In all income categories except the 95thpercentile, [B]income growth rates under Democratic presidents exceeded income growth rates under Republican ones[/B]. That suggests greater income equality can coexist with (or even help create) greater prosperity."[/COLOR][/INDENT]
Just the facts. Possibly unsettling to some, but facts all the same. The graph shows even the 95th percentile as seeing more income growth under Democrats vs under Republicans, but the article notes that the difference is less than the statistical margin of error at that point, so not significant. From the 95th percentile up, individuals saw equal growth under either party. Both parties, you see, always look out for their richest supporters!
Seeing that graph caused me to wonder in defense of Republicans, “Did individual income under Democrats do better because Democrats blew huge deficit holes in the U.S. budget and, so, stimulated economic growth that led to income growth … by burdening the next generation with enormous debt? Did they cause the US national debt to balloon so that people gained this income at the government’s expense?" After all, this income growth did not just happen down in the welfare section; it happened throughout the middle class and even above.
[B]Republican vs Democrat on the US National Debt[/B]
The next US national debt graph is equally telling in its Democrat vs Republican comparison, year by year:
[img]http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/Federal_Debt_1901-2010.png[/img]
Studying this graphic, you can clearly see that [COLOR="#0000FF"]US government debt by year after WWII (1945) declined as a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) continually all the way[/COLOR] [COLOR="#FF0000"]until the Reagan years[/COLOR]. You can also see that most of those post-war years were under solid Democratic control in both houses. [COLOR="#FF0000"][B]Throughout the years of Reagonomics[/B], however, the United State’s national debt as a percentage of GDP — after decades of decline – [B]grew rapidly and continued to do so under President George Bush the First[/B][/COLOR]. [COLOR="#0000FF"]Then U.S. debt plunged for the first time throughout the Clinton years ([COLOR="#0000FF"]when taxes on the wealthy were raised[/COLOR])[/COLOR] and finally began to [COLOR="#FF0000"]rise again during the Bush II years ([B]when taxes on the wealthy were cut[/B] again … even more than they were cut by Reagan.)[/COLOR]
So, while individual income grew better for everyone during Democratic administrations, the U.S.A. national debt grew much better for everyone under Republican administrations.
You might have already noted that the debt soared in proportion to GDP under President Obama, but the Obama years do not afford a fair comparison of Republican vs Democrat on the national debt because we entered what may eventually be called the Great Depression II during the Bush II years. Let me put it another way: I don’t believe for a second that Republicans, who presided over the creation of this global depression, would have fared any better than Obama when it comes to US deficits for the following reason: Obama has carried out exactly the economic policies that Bush switched to in his final year.
If you don’t think he has, it’s time to remember that, when the so-called “Great Recession” began, George W. Bush said he had to “give up on my Capitalist principles” and approved a 900-billion dollar bailout to be followed by ANOTHER 900 billion later if necessary. This second 900 billion was already scheduled to happen during the next administration (whether the next election turned out to yield a Republican president or a Democrat) and amounts to almost half of Obama’s accumulated debt. With his first bailout, Obama merely carried out what had been established in the final Bush year. From there, Obama has used the same resident “experts” Bush was relying on, such as Ben Bernanke, and has continued more of the same bad economic programming on his own. So, Obama doesn’t get to wipe his hands clean of these failed policies, as he has been utterly uncreative, but they are no different than what Bush began. Don’t let Republican leaders beguile you when it comes to Obama’s deficits. [COLOR="#0000FF"][B]Almost a trillion dollars[/B] of the Obama deficits were planned and approved by Bush before Bush left office[/COLOR].
The Great Recession is too much of an anomaly to compare how Democrats do versus Republicans in a head-to-head match on US deficits and the US debt. Even the Bush tax cuts that started the U.S. back into deficit spending remain in place under Obama. So, there has been almost no real change in economic policy. Q.E. continues. Bailouts continue. The Bush Tax Cuts have remained the same, and Obama’s medical program has yet to begin.
In case you are thinking that looking at the debt as a percentage of GDP skews the facts, let’s look at what the gross national debt has done, regardless of GDP.
[B]US national debt by year and by president[/B]
Here’s an interesting timeline of Republican vs Democrat presidents in relation to growth of the national debt:
[B]1980[/B]: Ronald Reagan runs for president during a recession in which the national debt as a percentage of GDP held completely flat. (Prior to those Carter recession years, the gross national debt grew slowly (top of graph below), yet slightly decreased as a percentage of GDP (bottom of graph)).
[img]http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/US_Debt_Trend.svg_.png[/img]
The biggest plank in Reagan’s platform, which he presents with poster infographics and considerable zeal is the promise to balance the budget against deficits that he claims will soon destroy the nation’s prosperity. Carter, he claims, is running the nation toward economic bankruptcy.
[B]1981-1989[/B]: With [B]full support from congressional Republicans[/B], [COLOR="#FF0000"]Reagan begins the [B]worst annual deficits the nation has seen since WWII[/B]. During the Reagan and Bush I years, the [B]gross national debt quadruples[/B][/COLOR] as a result of huge Republican military spending increases combined with Democrat refusal to cut social spending in order to make room for Reagan’s massive military spend-up.
[B]1993-2000[/B]: As seen above, [COLOR="#0000FF"]Bill Clinton inherits a national debt that is now ballooning at an alarming rate[/COLOR], but he gets an economic plan through congress that eliminates deficit spending entirely. (The Gingrich congress deserves partial credit here, too.) He does this largely by raising the taxes that had been cut by Reagan (which Republicans oppose) but to a point that remained a lot lower than taxes were before Reagan. Apparently, he strikes exactly the right balance in taxation because the recession of the Bush I year ends, and the country returns to growth. [COLOR="#0000FF"]For the first time in decades the U.S. runs a surplus budget so that the gross national debt actually declines as we start paying it down with the budget surplus[/COLOR]. It declines as fast as it had grown under Reagan … in part due to military cutback. At no time since WWII had the nation actually paid down its debt! The debt had declined as a percentage of GDP after WWWII only because GDP grew a lot after the war, but the actual debt, itself, grew continually after WWII (though only a in a trickle as the top graph shows). [COLOR="#0000FF"]Clinton was the only president to reverse that[/COLOR].
[B]2000[/B]: George W. Bush runs for president, inheriting the dot-com crash at the end of the Clinton era (a market correction of a bubble, something [B]far less significant than the core collapse of an economy that we have today[/B]) … and something that [B]would have righted itself as all stock market corrections do[/B].
[B]2001[/B]: [COLOR="#0000FF"]At the very end of the Clinton administration, the CBO shows the United States is on track to pay off the entirety of its national debt within a decade![/COLOR] It’s practically a miracle after living with debt for many decades.
[B]2001-2009[/B]: With full support from congressional Republicans, Bush begins running enormous deficits again as a way of pumping the economy back up from the dot-com crash. Bush hits the accelerator hard enough to double the gross debt that had already been quadrupled during the Reagan-Bush I years. [COLOR="#FF0000"]Most of the new annual deficits that add to the debt are due to the Bush Tax Cuts, two wars, and the expansion of government. [B]Bush manages to break the United States for the first time since the Great Depression[/B][/COLOR] just as Reagan broke the Soviet Union … by drawing it into military spending that it obviously could not actually afford. Same plan. Even Republicans like Representative Boehner freely announce the United states is “broke.” (A sentence any American would be deeply ashamed to say if it were not a fact that has to be admitted.) The entire [COLOR="#FF0000"]world economy goes down the toilet due to sloppy credit rules and deregulation of banks that went way too far[/COLOR]. [B]This is not the crash of a bubble, but the collapse of the United State’s economic core[/B]. It’s a core meltdown! (That’s why I begin telling friends that we have entered another economic depression, not just a recession. Few believe me, but four years later we have no real recovery and none in sight.)
[B]2009[/B]: [COLOR="#0000FF"]Barack Obama inherits a [COLOR="#FF0000"][B]$1.3 trillion deficit[/B] from Bush[/COLOR][/COLOR]. It’s a simple fact that most of this deficit was already budgeted during the Bush years; yet the Republicans immediately condemn Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility.
There is [COLOR="#FF0000"]no getting around the fact that the Republican track record for deficit spending is abysmal or that the Great Recession began for the entire world in the eighth year of their watch under George Bush II. Not only has personal income for ALL segments of the population ([B]except the top 1%[/B]) done worse during Republican administrations over the past fifty years, but [B]the United States’ gross debt has skyrocketed under every Republican administration from the beginning of Nixon’s second term onward[/B]. That’s a numerical fact[/COLOR], and their feet should be held to the fire for it. Moreover, the [COLOR="#FF0000"]top five percent of the U.S. populace pays a lower percentage of income taxes in proportion to their total wealth than do the bottom ninety-five[/COLOR]. (See “[URL="http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/bushwhacked-by-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-the-rich/"]Bush Whacked by the Bush Tax Cuts[/URL].”)
So, [I]that’s why I haven’t voted for Republicans in some time[/I], even though Democrats currently are carrying out the same lame bailout economics that Bush began. I didn’t change the facts in the presentation above to match the way I vote. [I]I changed the way I vote to match the facts[/I].
[I]I particularly invite Republican debate in the comments section below. Correct me with facts … if you can![/I]
The Poor in GOP States Will be Crushed Without "Obamacare"
[QUOTE=Tigon;161035]Chương tŕnh cung cấp dịch vụ bảo vệ sức khoẻ, chữa trị bệnh hoạn cho dân chúng thành luật chính thức đồng nhất cho cả nước.[COLOR="#FF0000"] Luật “Obamacare” này cũng là một h́nh thức “Quốc Hữu Hóa” như trên. V́ cần phải có thêm rất nhiều nhân viên của chính phủ liên bang để kiểm soát, áp chế và chế tài. Chính phủ liên bang phát tướng mập mạp hẳn ra.[/COLOR]
...
Đặng Đ́nh Tuân
[url]http://nguoivietboston.com/?p=10477[/url][/QUOTE]
"Quốc Hữu Hoá" his arse :D. Mr Đặng and those who are like him should learn about the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the new health care act. Mr Đặng should stay with the anti-commie rhetoric where the older Viets are good at instead of commenting about something out of his realm. Before he starts blabbering about the Federal government getting fatter, he needs to look at the GOP states where the poor would be crushed without the new health care act.
His writing betrayed his dismal understanding of American history and American economics. Mr Đặng's claim that the Federal government will get fatter = :D. ROTFL. LMFAO. Did he know that the Federal government has implemented hiring freeze, budget cuts, no cost of living adjustment (i.e. not catching up with the rising cost of living) for years, furlough, etc.? Mr Đặng didn't know jack about the rules and regulations that the Federal government must abide by. BTW, Republican presidents (not Democratic presidents) had historically expanded the Federal government. DOH!
American-born Viet intellects who care about America will simply shrug at Mr Đặng's ignorance.
---------------------------------
From [url]http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/08/15/690761/without-obamacare-families-making-under-5000-arent-poor-enough-for-medicaid-in-some-states/[/url]
[B]Without Obamacare, Families Making Under $5,000 Aren’t Poor Enough For Medicaid In Some States[/B]
By Tara Culp-Ressler and Adam Peck on Aug 15, 2012 at 9:30 am
The Affordable Care Act’s expansion of the Medicaid program would provide states with federal funds to help insure millions of Americans who currently can’t afford coverage, especially the low-income Americans whose annual earnings are slightly above the cut-off to qualify for Medicaid in their state. [COLOR="#0000FF"]Despite the significant financial benefits for the states that choose to accept the Medicare expansion,[/COLOR] [COLOR="#FF0000"][B]Republican governors across the country are choosing to reject the federal funds[/B] — leaving some states with impossibly low Medicaid thresholds that remain [B]far below the current poverty line[/B].[/COLOR]
Under the current program, states have varying income requirements for Medicaid eligibility. Thirty three states currently limit coverage to income levels below the federal poverty line, and 17 of those states will only cover families who are bringing in less than half of the income at the federal poverty level. In five states — [COLOR="#FF0000"]Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas[/COLOR] — [B]a family of three with an annual income over $5,000 makes too much money to receive any Medicaid assistance[/B]. ThinkProgress examined the national disparities:
[IMG]http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Medicaid_graphic-151.png[/IMG]
[COLOR="#0000FF"]Obamacare establishes a new eligibility level for Medicaid above the current poverty line of $18,530 for a working family of three. Effective in 2014, the expansion will allow families who make up to $26,344 to be eligible for coverage under the program.[/COLOR] That would [B]make a huge difference for low-income working families in states like [COLOR="#FF0000"]Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana[/COLOR] who are not currently considered poor enough to qualify despite the fact that they are [COLOR="#FF0000"]living in poverty by federal standards[/COLOR][/B]. However, [COLOR="#FF0000"]those states’ [B]Republican governors are choosing to deny[/B][/COLOR] their state’s low-income residents health care coverage.
If governors reject the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, the families whose income falls between the federal poverty line and the new $26,344 income level may receive subsidies to help them participate in the health insurance exchanges that will be set up in 2014. But the [COLOR="#FF0000"]estimated 11 million families who fall [B]under the poverty line[/B] but above their state’s Medicaid eligibility line will be left in the cold, unable to receive either Medicaid benefits or subsidies[/COLOR].
GOP governors may be relying on Gov. Rick Perry’s (R-TX) strategy and simply pretending that their uninsured state residents don’t exist. However, if some [B]families who scrape by on just $5,000 a year remain ineligible for Medicaid because their governors reject Obamacare[/B], the reality is worth considering.
Questions Regarding Romney and Taxes
[QUOTE=Cao Cầu;161124]Tôi không bỏ phiếu cho Rommy v́:
...
3. [COLOR="#FF0000"]Thiếu lương thiện : tại sao không chịu công bố thuế trong 10 năm mà chỉ có 2 năm. Nếu đóng thuế đàng hoàng th́ chuyện ǵ phải dấu?[/COLOR] Tại sao cha của Rommy công bố 12 năm thuế mà Romny không làm được như cha ḿnh . Rơ ràng là Romny phải có điều ǵ gian lân. Mà đă gian lận th́ không đủ tư cách làm Tổng thông.[/QUOTE]
From [url]http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/[/url]
10 Questions
By ThinkProgress War Room on Sep 24, 2012 at 4:51 pm
[B]More Questions Than Answers About Romney & Taxes[/B]
On Friday, Mitt Romney belatedly released just a single additional tax return — his 2011 filing — and a cryptic summary of the previous two decades. The summary featured no details about any individual year. And as for the 2011 return, it was cooked to produce a higher tax rate — and more favorable headlines — for Romney, calling into question what else in this and other returns was manipulated to produce a more favorable appearance.
Here’s ten questions about his taxes that Mitt Romney still needs to answer:
1. After the election, when the subject of your tax returns is outside of the public glare, [COLOR="#FF0000"]will you file an amended tax return to claim your full deduction of charitable contributions?[/COLOR] Was the tax rate you reported for other years similarly manipulated?
2. [B]Why was your 2011 income $7 million lower than you estimated it to be in January?[/B] [COLOR="#FF0000"]How does someone overestimate their income [B]by $7 million?[/B][/COLOR]
3. Financial disclosures show that you have as much as $82 million in your tax-deferred Individual Retirement Account, despite the fact that tax rules limited contributions into such accounts to $30,000 per year. [COLOR="#FF0000"]Did you [B]lowball the value of the assets you put into your IRA[/B], as tax experts suspect? And did you [B]do the same with gifts into your sons’ trusts[/B]?[/COLOR]
4. [COLOR="#FF0000"]What was the purpose of your Swiss bank account and the myriad offshore entities shown on your return, based in countries like the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg[/COLOR], if not to [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/the-mysteries-of-mitt-romneys-financial-records.html"]avoid taxes[/URL]?
5. Can you explain what one tax expert has called a “mysterious one-time infusion of foreign tax credits” in 2008?
6. [COLOR="#FF0000"]You have not disclosed any foreign bank account reports (FBARs). [/COLOR]Did you file all FBARs on all of your offshore accounts with the Treasury Department by the legal deadlines each year?
7. You claim to have paid an average tax rate of 20 percent over the last 20 years based on a [URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/expert-romney-may-have-paid-less-in-taxes-over-20-years-than-it-appears/2012/09/21/41b27e00-041e-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_blog.html"]flawed calculation[/URL]. [COLOR="#FF0000"]What was your real tax rate?[/COLOR]
8. Your 14 percent tax rate –- not to mention the approximately 10 percent tax rate you would have paid had you not inflated it — is less than what many middle-class Americans pay. And [COLOR="#FF0000"]you [B]paid just 0.2% of your income in payroll taxes[/B], while [B]most Americans pay about 15%[/B][/COLOR]. Do you think that is fair?
9. Your tax returns show that the Marriott Corporation paid you $260,390 in directors’ fees in 2011. When you were the company’s audit committee chair in the 1990s, [COLOR="#FF0000"]were you aware that the company was [/COLOR][URL="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-22/romney-as-auditing-chairman-saw-marriott-son-of-boss-tax-shelter-defy-irs.html"]abusing a notorious illegal tax shelter[/URL]?
10. You say you’ve made a “commitment to the public” that your tax rate should not be below 13 percent. [COLOR="#FF0000"]If you believe that the richest Americans shouldn’t be paying an exceptionally low tax rate, why don’t you support President Obama’s[/COLOR] “[URL="http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/buffett-rule"]Buffett Rule[/URL]”?
In fairness, Romney actually did answer question number eight [URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57518495/campaign-2012-obama-vs-romney/?pageNum=2&tag=contentMain;contentBody"]during a 60 Minutes interview that aired last night[/URL]. [COLOR="#FF0000"]Romney argued that it is indeed “fair” for him to pay a lower tax rate on millions in investment income than a middle class worker pays on $50,000 in wages:[/COLOR]
[INDENT]Pelley: Now, [COLOR="#FF0000"]you made on your investments, personally, about [B]$20 million[/B] last year[/COLOR]. And [COLOR="#FF0000"]you paid 14 percent in federal taxes[/COLOR]. That’s the capital gains rate. [B]Is that fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?[/B]
Romney: It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35 percent.
[B]Pelley: So you think it is fair?
Romney: Yeah,[/B] I think it’s the right way to encourage economic growth, to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work.[/INDENT]
Not only does none other than [URL="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/333912/reagan-tax-loopholes-crazy/"]Ronald Reagan disagree with Romney[/URL], but his economic argument is also wrong. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy ushered in the weakest job growth in decades. Lower taxes on the wealthy [URL="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/28/256605/chart-lower-taxes-on-the-rich-dont-lead-to-job-growth/"]do not lead to job growth[/URL]. In fact, the [URL="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/28/256605/chart-lower-taxes-on-the-rich-dont-lead-to-job-growth/"]opposite appears to be true[/URL].
[B]BOTTOM LINE[/B]: It’s time for Mitt Romney to come clean about both his tax returns and plans to increase taxes on the middle class while slashing them even further for the wealthiest Americans.
