Diogenes: I'm sure this is no way a retaliatory attack motivated the Right's inability to understand his Newsweek piece.

If he speaks wharrgarbl....he will be attacked.

I'm sure he's referring to the taxes as a percentage of GDP which are at low levels. However, the income tax rates haven't changed since 2003 in any significant fashion. Obviously something other than "republicans" is causing the drop. Of course, by 50-year low he means it is only 14% instead of it's historical average of 18%. Of course, he also fails to mention that we are currently spending 25% of GDP and that's projected to increase to 26.5% by 2020.

Federal tax rates may be down, but local and state tax rates and fees are up in that same time period. It balances out

Lionel Mandrake: Ah, NewsBusters...the FOX & Friends of the intratubes.

Yep, all they need is a Stanford grad to look up the definition of tax is on Google and they would be the exact same.

B-b-b-but TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!

bhcompy: It balances out.

I suppose the concept of 'deficit' is lost upon you, eh?

For as short an article that was it seems light on actual information.

Elvis_Bogart: We should have 98% tax rates on individuals making over one trillion dollars a year. No one one would be affected and we'd be able to say we have super high tax rates for the filthy stinking rich.

We built the greatest economic and military superpower the world has ever seen with a top tax rate of 91 pct and union membership around 30 pct.

Yes, really! Why do you want America to become a second rate superpower?

So let me get this straight - Andrew Sullivan makes a statement that's wrong, so therefore all of Liberalism is wrong, the Democratic Party is evil, and Mitt Gingrich is president immediately. That correct?

bhcompy: Federal tax rates may be down, but local and state tax rates and fees are up in that same time period. It balances out

You realize that the President of the United States doesn't set state and municipal tax rates, right?

... right?

LasersHurt: So let me get this straight - Andrew Sullivan makes a statement that's wrong, so therefore all of Liberalism is wrong, the Democratic Party is evil, and Mitt Gingrich is president immediately. That correct?

More or less yes.

Or as I like to call it, Thursday at News Busters.

LasersHurt: So let me get this straight - Andrew Sullivan makes a statement that's wrong, so therefore all of Liberalism is wrong, the Democratic Party is evil, and Mitt Gingrich Michael Palin is president immediately. That correct?

FTFY

Good lord. We're going to go with the semantic argument for why reactionaries are right on this one issue and therefore should be declared Supreme Overlords of all Creation for all Eternity?

bhcompy: Federal tax rates may be down, but local and state tax rates and fees are up in that same time period. It balances out

Is that a tacit admission that the Federal Government should raise taxes?

You can argue about tax rates and revenues, whether higher taxes on this bracket or that will solve problems or cause problems, and engage in arcane debates about taxation all day, but you can't deny that the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 reauthorized the Bush tax cuts for two years, was passed by the 111th Congress (with Democratic Party majorities in both houses), and was signed into law by Barack Obama, a Democrat. So, if the Bush tax cuts continue to be a problem, you cannot credibly blame another party.

Cinaed: I suppose the concept of 'deficit' is lost upon you, eh?

I suppose the concept of "absolutely no taxes is not a rational tax policy and no way to run a government" is lost upon you, eh?

My favorite part about this headline and article is it's a response trying to attack "Why are Obama's critics so dumb?"

The smug, it fills me.

indylaw: bhcompy: Federal tax rates may be down, but local and state tax rates and fees are up in that same time period. It balances out

You realize that the President of the United States doesn't set state and municipal tax rates, right?

... right?

Right it is apples and oranges.

/misses Herman Cain.

When did Sullivan become a "Obama cheerleader"?

/the guy is a hack but still

canyoneer: You can argue about tax rates and revenues, whether higher taxes on this bracket or that will solve problems or cause problems, and engage in arcane debates about taxation all day, but you can't deny that the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 reauthorized the Bush tax cuts for two years, was passed by the 111th Congress (with Democratic Party majorities in both houses), and was signed into law by Barack Obama, a Democrat. So, if the Bush tax cuts continue to be a problem, you cannot credibly blame another party.

This BS argument again?

As always...fark you mods and Drew for greenlighting this kind of shiat

canyoneer: You can argue about tax rates and revenues, whether higher taxes on this bracket or that will solve problems or cause problems, and engage in arcane debates about taxation all day, but you can't deny that the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 reauthorized the Bush tax cuts for two years, was passed by the 111th Congress (with Democratic Party majorities in both houses), and was signed into law by Barack Obama, a Democrat. So, if the Bush tax cuts continue to be a problem, you cannot credibly blame another party.

You want to associate over a decade of reduced revenues with a two year extension signed under threat of stopping unemployment compensation?

Very honest of you.

Cataholic: Diogenes: I'm sure this is no way a retaliatory attack motivated the Right's inability to understand his Newsweek piece.

If he speaks wharrgarbl....he will be attacked.

I'm sure he's referring to the taxes as a percentage of GDP which are at low levels. However, the income tax rates haven't changed since 2003 in any significant fashion. Obviously something other than "republicans" is causing the drop. Of course, by 50-year low he means it is only 14% instead of it's historical average of 18%. Of course, he also fails to mention that we are currently spending 25% of GDP and that's projected to increase to 26.5% by 2020.

I'm guessing you're right that he meant tax revenue as a % of GDP. As a side note, I think that 14% v. 18% is not trivial when we're talking about numbers of this magnitude, but that's a judgment call.

A quick Google found similar conclusions (50-year low) when using taxes as a % of income:

"Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year [2009] since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.
...
Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. "

Link (new window)

To say that "revenue" is at a 50 year low is, obviously, absurd. Population has exploded and inflation has definitely altered government revenues.

I'm going to assume that, in his statement, he said that revenues had collapsed and rates were at a 50-year low (which they are, I believe). I doubt Andrew Sullivan is going to make that type of statement unless he got himself screwed up.

Or, maybe Andrew Sullivan is a complete retard and goes around saying ridiculous things all the time.

bravian: When did Sullivan become a "Obama cheerleader"?

/the guy is a hack but still

The moment he had the balls to question any criticism of the President, apparently. That makes you a partisan hack, instantly.

bhcompy: Federal tax rates may be down, but local and state tax rates and fees are up in that same time period. It balances out

Um, no.

"Federal, state and local income taxes consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. "

Link (new window)

CPennypacker: This BS argument again?

It's not BS, it's just the facts.

indylaw: bhcompy: Federal tax rates may be down, but local and state tax rates and fees are up in that same time period. It balances out

You realize that the President of the United States doesn't set state and municipal tax rates, right?

... right?

I don't particularly care about that. I care about what percentage of my income goes out to taxes. You should, too.

Cinaed: bhcompy: It balances out.

I suppose the concept of 'deficit' is lost upon you, eh?

Balances out on my end. On their end that's their problem. They should budget better. We all have to cinch our belts.

FlashHarry: bhcompy: Federal tax rates may be down, but local and state tax rates and fees are up in that same time period. It balances out

and why is that? because republicans insist on cutting state and local government spending.

Do you have anything other than some stupid random talking point to back that up? Particularly something that would apply to my state, California, where a Republican governor raised taxes more than a half dozen times in the past decade?

Gulper Eel: indylaw: You realize that the President of the United States doesn't set state and municipal tax rates, right?

... right?

No, Washington simply dumps the costs on states and municipalities. And that's why their taxes go up. Nice arrangement: hog all the credit for the programs and foist the costs off on some other chump back home.

You know about unfunded mandates, right?

"State's rights! Shrink the government and lets states handle their own!"
"Wait stop dumping costs on the states!"

WE GET IT. HE'S BLACK.

This is the only real reason republicans/teabaggers/"independents" don't like Obama. Everything else they shiat out of their mouths is just cowardice.

canyoneer: CPennypacker: This BS argument again?

It's not BS, it's just the facts.

Yes, it is JUST the facts while completely ignoring every other bit of reality surrounding the situation.

Hitler was elected in Germany.
He properly annexed land and received international approval for those actions.
He put MILLIONS to work during the late 30s creating a huge manufacturing base that brought Germany out of the Great Depression.

Those are just the facts, too.