I agree that their are quite a few different kinds of taxes and in each of those cases I am still getting more benefit than the cost. For example I moved into a suburb southwest of Denver, this area brags about its low sales tax, becuase it is in an unincorporated area you do not pay city sales tax, that saves about 3% on most purchases. One thing I noticed immediatetly was that in denver no sales tax is charged on grocery purchases, in southwest jeffco where I was living 4.1% was charged on grocery purchases. Because the area was unincorporated they did not have their own police department, something that can be very inconvinient if your car is broken into, as I learned first hand. In Denver I could have called a police officer and their was a substation a few blocks from my house. In the burbs I had to call the sherrifs department that was almost 15 miles away and could not get an officer to come out for at least 8 hours. their was a possible tax savings in the lower sales tax rate but their was a cost in less police protection.

I am very aware of the taxes I pay and for me it is worth paying my fair share of taxes in order to live in an area with certain services. If you look at areas that have high real estate values they are also areas with higher local taxes and better local amenities. In other words you get your taxes back when you sell your home or just by getting to live in a better area.

In terms of the currency devaluing I think the dollar is at an all time low compared to the euro and the pound so maybe all the debt caused by the borrowings of Reagan and Bush is having an effect on the dollar.

As for health care I think Canadiens as a whole are healthier than Americans so they must be doing something right.

napoleon: Also, do you remember the government phone service monopoly through AT&T? For decades, AT&T was the only company that provided phone service, and there was no major advance in technology during that time. Since AT&T was broken up, technology has sprung forward dramatically because there was competition.

AT&T was broken up by the US government when they still monitored the private sector and applied the anti-trust authority to breaking up businesses that were able to rig the market to their advantage at the expense of customers. AT&T was a public company when it was split up into the “baby bells”…it wasn’t state owned.

So while you’re laying it out to karl as if he doesn’t understand this or that, maybe we’re all short in that department. I know I am.

bmili – I’m on board with the sustainable GDP and lower inflation, but there are two things (one about inflation and the other) about the Reagan/BushSr/BushJr years compared with the Clinton years that I don’t get:

1. Energy and food consumption are not factored into the core inflation statistic released by the FED. I read in Barrons this week (or it could be last week’s) that once you do factor in those two (could we call food or energy not “core” expenditures in every one’s budget?!?!), the numbers go from 2.5% or .2% a quarter (winging it here) to 10% from 4 years ago.

I wonder when that became the formula used for the inflation…much like the unemployment statistic and how it doesn’t count people who are still out of a job but not collecting.

2. The federal debt skyrocketed during Reagan’s years, Bush Sr’s and OFF THE CHART during Bush Jr’s reign.

During Clinton’s 8 years in office, the deficit went down, the budget was balanced AND the S&P 500 was up twice year to year as it is now WITH twice the job creation of the years we’re currently experiencing now.

I’m not a big fan of Reubenomics btw, just trying to make a point.

With economics it is easy to cherrypick statistics to back up ones position. Job creation and interest paid monthly on our nation’s debt aren’t brought up by anyone in the GOP. Good reason for that, as not only are we not getting the bang for our buck in terms of government services (consult a veteran at Walter Reed on that score), but too much out of every dollar is going towards interest payments to foreign governments that should really be borrowing from us and not the other way around!

I get that both sides have talking points, but I’m really (REALLY) opinionated on issues that I feel passionately about…Iraq and our tax dollars going wasted are two of those issues. For some perspective on this – I really have no interest in anything political that I cannot somehow separate into ‘Justice’ or ‘Injustice’. If the issue pertains to the interests of one versus the interests of another, unless one of those two parties is getting the shaft unjustly, then my mind loses interest.

The “social issues” that tend to eat up a sizeable chunk of our nation’s political discourse, for the most part they don’t get me fired up or interested…I think it’s my analytical nature, and where arbitrary or abstract assertions are made that cannot be proven, my mind honestly goes blank in terms of what’s what. My foundation on these matters is the Constitution and my idea of what ‘Liberty’ and ‘Freedom’ (abstract concepts, but documented) really are, and whether one side denies either party one or both of those.

I’m a jailhouse lawyer at heart.

I challenge you to look up how many different taxes there are. There are incomes taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, social security taxes, Medicare taxes, and gasoline taxes, to name a mere handful.

Also, inflation is not high prices, like many people assume. On the contrary, high prices are a symptom of inflation. Inflation is actually an increase in the supply of money, caused by the Federal Reserve printing more money. Basically, it’s legalized counterfeiting. The government uses the “new money” to pay costs that taxes won’t cover. Since inflation devalues the currency and leads to higher prices, it’s really just another form of government robbery, or taxation if you prefer.

What it can’t pay for through taxation and printing more money, the government pays for by borrowing more money. Hence the large national debt.

The government is able to offer its services at lower rates than private companies because it doesn’t worry about earning more money than it spends. Its services are not necessarily better, though. In Canada, which has socialized medicince, you have to go on a waiting list for several MONTHS if you need a medical operation. I heard of one woman once who was on a waiting list to have a bullet removed from her leg. Also, do you remember the government phone service monoply through AT&T? For decades, AT&T was the only company that provided phone service, and there was no major advance in technology during that time. Since AT&T was broken up, technology has sprung forward dramatically because there was competition.

Of course I would rather spend my own money but I recognize that by paying taxxes I am able to to enjoy certain government services for far less than if I had to purchase them on my own. For example police protection, if I had to maintain my own police force it would cost far more than I pay in taxxes. Even things like trash removal. The city of denver takes care of all trash removal, when I recentely moved the burbs I was paying $20 a month for trash removal and it seemed like my property taxes were still higher in the burbs.

Even things like public parks and libraries are something that most of us could not afford on our own but by paying a small amount in taxxes we are able to enjoy them. In my mind it is worth giving up a few lattes to have police and fire protection and good roads as well as a park system and system of bike paths and a national park system and all the othr things that a well functioning government can provide for far less than the private sector.

Tax cuts wind up being a wash as an economic stimulus. Unless of course you don’t cut spending when you cut taxes. For example lets say after my tax rate is cut I have $100 more to spend I will probably go spend it at Starbucks or on I-tunes and if enough people behave in the same way way, Starbucks or I-tunes will probably hire more people and the money I saved on my taxes will go back into the economy. The same thing happens if my taxxes are not cut. The government has an extra $100 that it pays to a food inspector or perhaps an extra $100 goes to buy Fema trailers. In the end the economy has the same net benefit, although I might miss out on a latte.

The conservative spend and borrow method completely skews the economic effect and might cause short term economic stimulus but in the end someone has to pay for all those lattes, and usually it is a Democrat who has to be the adult and put the country on a budget.

Again the conservative method for dealing with the economy, i.e. tax cuts are always good is somewhat flawed and as practiced by Bush, Cheney and Reagan is a complete failure.

The other thing the Reagan gave us was the “conservative shall not speak ill of other conservatives” what this has done is created a party that is unable to look at itself and examine what works and what doesn’t, or even call out party members like Mark Foley and Ted Haggar. You can go the conservative web sites like Polipundit and look at some of the defenses they offered for Foley and Haggar and see pretty clearly that if someone claims to be conservative all other transgressions are forgiven.

In some ways I admire the evil genius that is Karl Rove, he not only managed to screw the working class but convinced them that they are noble for getting screwed, I see why even during the attorney general scandal everyone is falling on their sword to protect Rove.

karl: As far as Reagan being a true conservative one of the most intrusive programs in US history has been the war on drugs, I don’t know if that was thought up during the Reagan years or he and his crew just expanded it but the end result is the worlds largest prison population.

Nixon got the ball rolling, but Reagan made sure that the crack epidemic created an explosion in the black prison population. Mandatory minimums haven’t worked to affect violence or the general drug economy in the least bit. The approach has only caused more all around aggression and very little “correction” along the way.

napoleon15: The deficit has nothing to do with the tax cuts (especially since tax revenue has increased since then), it has to do with runaway spending…By the way, his tax cuts were not only small, but temporary.

To say that the tax cuts have nothing to do with the deficit is like me going into bankruptcy after getting fired and taking a job that paid half as much as I made before, and then insisting that it had nothing to do with my inability to then pay my bills. It makes absolutely no sense to assume that a cut in upper earnings bracket taxes, dividend taxes and capital gains taxes isn’t having a direct effect on the budget deficit.

Starting at this point, with an assumption as illogical as this, ensures that whatever comes afterward is over or underdone. Removing the impact of these tax cuts means that the elements that are left suddenly have more of a negative impact than they really do.

The selective reality dynamic at play here is a staple of talk radio and right-wing punditry in general.