There is no need to throw around detailed numbers and statistics. It's quite simple. Huge tax cuts create huge deficits. Didn't we learn this during Reagan's presidency? There are no gimme's here. Clinton initiated a tax increase with not one Republican voting for it. Then, surprise, we had the biggest surplus when he left office. I wonder what happened to it? Oh, of course, it went to Bush's folly, otherwise known as the mess in Iraq. Also, it went to finance that gigantic tax break he gave to the wealthiest two percent of Americans.

The Republicans and their rich supporters and huge corporations are laughing all the way to the bank. What a colossal joke on the middle class, who are getting crushed due to stagnant wages, higher cost of living, ridiculously high expenses for health insurance and college tuition, and on and on and on.

I remember everyone ridiculing Al Gore
when he ran for the presidency in 2000 for saying that he would put social security in a lockbox. Don't we wish that would have happened. Bush and all of his fellow criminals have taken whatever they can get their filthy hands on. They have gotten rich at the expense of the poor and middle class. I just can't believe that there are morons here who can't see what is right in front of their eyes.

So now Giuliani is going to pick up where Bush left off. He has totally sold himself and any credibility he had, to continue the discredited policies of this rotten administration. I hope Americans wake up before it's too late. People have been calling Hillary Clinton "Bush Lite". Well, what is Giuliani except "Bush II - The Sequel. God help us all if he should manage to get elected.

That is my best friend's hand. Isn't it lovely and it is so exciting to see how happy Rudy is to talk to her!!!!!!!!!!!

tina chicago IL,

"How can anyone be against Rudy Giuliani's aim to let you keep more of the money you earn? I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, when I talk to my liberal friends about this."

Easily.

You NEVER go to war without INCREASING taxes to cover the cost of it - unless you want to look like an idiot when you borrow BILLIONS from a (gasp)COMMUNIST, (double gasp) competing superpower and (triple gasp) increase the national debt up to your eyeballs - which we will ALL have to pay back eventually with money out of our wallets anyway.

If you want to fight wars all over the globe, get things (infrastructure, etc) fixed HERE, and pay down are national debt, then YOU should be prepared to start paying for it. Don't just hand the bill to future generations like your kids and grandkids cuz YOU don't want to pony up.

It's completely ignorant to make THEM pay later cuz YOU don't want to pay now!

Yeah .. I know, blame Dems for raising taxes rather than the Republicans who created the debt that needs to be paid off by raising them.

Looks like you're missing a couple bricks in your OWN brick wall there.

to RU B fr. New Hampshire- thank you for pointing out European pay high taxes and inferring that Americans should NOT go down that road.

Someone from Denmark married into the family; well, their relatives all appear to "work for the government" . They seem complacent about their lovely vacation time, which exceeds what Americans take. They get most of their life "managed" by the government. But ya know what? They lack fire, a competitive edge, and drive for thenselves and their families' properity. It's just creepy and so socialist. I will not be voting for anything that starts sending us down that route because it's not what America's about. Socialism is for the complacent.

No one has addressed my question of why we should be financing the war on credit. Do you have any idea what we spend in this country on interest? Why is it “conservative” to borrow from the Chinese?

The Other David - Clearwater, FL

The problem is what OTHER spending is being cut and has been cut(education, Medicaid, child support enforcement, the food stamp program, Supplemental Security Income for senior citizens and the disabled, etc) while we spend millions on a poorly planned war in Iraq that we are not wining and WONT win until the Iraqis decide to pull their own weight.

Stop the war, and less spending has to get cut in other places - especially since such a HUGE portion of spending goes to defense spending.

Oh yeah … and get rid of that tax cut for the rich, and you wont have to cut spending in other areas either.

Cary asks:

"Democrats don't want the rich to get tax cuts. Isn't that punishing the rich?"

Um, no. There is an old adage "the first million is the hardest." So, if someone has already managed to accumulate a sizeable amount of wealth, then why should we give them an extra incentive to make MORE?

The reality is this — even before the Bush tax cuts, there were substantial breaks in the tax code designed to reward and incentivize the investor class. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will not change that, although it will bring the rate the owners of businesses pay on their profits closer to the rate their workers pay on their wages. That is not "punishing" the rich any more than it is "punishing" the poor.

David Said, " you want things fixed and paid off without increasing the national debt by borrowing (from competing world powers no less), then you PAY MORE IN TAXES. And the more you have to contribute, the more you should - since the poor obviously cant contribute money they don't have.

My 10 year old can understand that .. can you?"

Does your 10 year old understand that if you reduce spending, you don't have to raise taxes?

Does your 10 year old understand that ecen with the Bush tax cuts that tax revenues have increased - but that Congress keeps on increasing their spending?

How does your 20 year old define Rich and Poor (In dollar of income)?

PS - The Poor (Under $25,000 per year income) effectively don't pay federal income taxes courtesy of earned income credits.

Guess that changes your score.

Instead of attacking each other, why not look at how the various candidates handle taxes.

Gov. Romney came into office with $3.2 bill. deficit, which he eliminated by increasing some state fees ( marriage license, home closing fees, fees for bringing a lawsuit, golf course fees, and the like.) He also proposed a corporate tax increase in order to lower Massachusetts' deficit . He accomplished this without raising personal income or sale taxes.

Bill Richardson is a rare Democratic governor who advocates income tax cuts, and did so in his state from 8.2 to 4.9 percent. He opposes Pres. Bush's across the board tax cuts and only wants the middle class to have them. However, he understands fiscal conservatism and is quoted saying "Businesses move to states where taxes are falling, not rising."

Ru B, New Hampshire,

FACT: The CEOs are hording the profits that should be going to the WORKERS who worked their azzes off to MAKE the CEO the money that he's getting. Many are getting multi-billion in compensation packages as those workers get their pensions, salary and jobs slashed.

0-1!

FACT: That 22 percent is doing a heck of a lot for anybody but the rich. Making the rich richer isn't stimulating EVERYBODY'S economy.

0-2!

"Consumer debt rises when people live beyond their means."

Really? Care to take a guess at what the top THREE causes for personal bankruptcies are? Wait …let guess? The poor buying Mercedes, fur coats and caviar right?

Wrong!

FACT: Try job loss, medical bills, and divorce.

0-3!

"The revenues are going to many of the earmarked projects coming out of the Dem-controlled Congress. Demand earmark reform."

LOL! Blame the Dems again … for what they've been doing for 7 months rather than the repuubs who've had control of congress for YEARS, CREATED the deficits and national debt we have now, and even went so far as to REMOVE pesky laws that PREVENTED them from raising that national debt? Where were you when the repubs were earmarking Republican Senator Don Young's bridge to nowhere at a cost of 200 million dollars? Nowhere as long as it was the Republicans who were doing it.

0-4!

"I never advocated deregulation in my post, so please re-read before you accuse."

Your first post read as follows: "They [Dems] want to control our pocketbooks, so they don't want us to know how effective it is if we make them take their hands off." If you want the government's hands off everything, then that also means you favor deregulation. Perhaps you haven't gotten your GED yet?

0-5!

"People who don't work or have good spending habits or don't read the contract completely can't pay mortgages!"

See my part on what causes personal bankruptcies. Funny how your ilk praised Bush for his contributing to record home ownership. You thought those ARMS were GREAT back then. But later when they made the housing market go belly up when they adjusted they're suddenly BAD now? Bush gladly took the kudos back then, so he can take the blame now.

0-6!

"Welfare for anyone is bankrupting our country. 50% of the US budget is spent in "entitlement" programs. Check out the budget."

And how much is spent fighting and NOT winning wars for FOUR YEARS? Wars as part of a "war on terra" that he himself admitted "I don't think you can win [it]"?

It's fighting wars without increasing taxes to pay for them that is bankrupting our country - because he'd rather borrow money from .. and thus empower .. COMMUNIST China.

0-7!

Paying for subsidies to energy companies who are already seeing MULTI-BILLION dollar record profits is asinine. PERIOD! Consumers paying more to make disgustingly rich companies RICHER is NEVER in the consumer's interest.

0-8!

"Rick, your #'s on the war are false." Right. I'll just believe whatever Dubya says - since he's been so reliable up to now right?

0-9!

"show me a Dem who ISN'T for Socialized, gov't-paid healthcare"

Our health care system (in its current incarnation) doesn't work efficiently for the majority of people it's supposed to work for, which is why so many millions cant afford the coverage they need. I know, you think privatization and free market is the answer. That way we can pay 5 times as much for 1/10th the results - like we're doing now right?

0-10!

"the ultimate question regarding taxes is: Why should ANYONE have more right to what you earn than you??"

If you want things fixed and paid off without increasing the national debt by borrowing (from competing world powers no less), then you PAY MORE IN TAXES. And the more you have to contribute, the more you should - since the poor obviously cant contribute money they don't have.

My 10 year old can understand that .. can you?

Now please think before you respond next time, and maybe I wont have to correct you as much.

I don't hate rich people. I look at their success and try to figure it out. Shouldn't we all try to emulate those who have figured out how to make lots o' money?

Democrats seem to think that rich people shouldn't get tax cuts. Isn't that punishing rich people?

How can anyone be against Rudy Giuliani's aim to let you keep more of the money you earn?

I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, when I talk to my liberal friends about this.

The "new" Democratic Congress is proposing the largest tax increase in history. If you don't like the amount being withheld from your paycheck NOW for entitlement programs, watch out if you elect a liberal Democrat. I'm just sayin'.

Why can't you sheep get it through your thick skull that Ron Paul is the ONLY CANDIDATE that will do anything to alleviate the tax burden that we face?? He has NEVER voted for a tax increase; he wants to repeal the 16th amendment and get RID OF THE IRS! Stop eating up this crap that the media is spoon-feeding you and think for yourselves.

David in Salinas,

"We don’t need to raise taxes to balance the budget., Anonymous. We just need to stop throwing trillions down a rat hole in Iraq."

Oh, end the war in Iraq. Okay. Why don't you take a peek at Edwards', Clinton's, and Obama's campaign pages to see their policies on Iraq? Notice something? None of them has any plans on what they're going to do should any one of them find themselves in office with the war still going on. All of them have, as a campaign plank, a war that is conveniently over by the time they get into office. You want to know why? Not a one of them wants a "Fall of Saigon" as the innaugural event of their presidency. So each one conveniently has it written into their campaign that they have a plan to end the war. . . on Bush's watch, not their own. You think if that war is still going on when any one of those three gets into office they're going to pull out immediately? You've really got no business talking shop on politics if you would really be that naive about matters. If that war is still going on when Clinton/Obama/Edwards gets into office our troops won't be going anywhere and the funding for the war won't decrease by a single penny.

"Giuliani won’t stop funding the war. Neither will Romney, Thompson, McCain or the rest of the Republicans. The Democrats will. That’s one of the things that make them the fiscally responsible party."

No, the Democrats will not stop funding the war because the Democrats aren't stupid. Want proof that they aren't stupid? Despite the fact that they could have after 2006, the Dems took impeachment off the table. Smart move, it would have come back to haunt them when a galvanized Republican base turned out in retribution in '08. Now, because the Dems are smart, an unenthusiastic Republican base will probably hand them the election. Do you think a party that shrewd and politically calculating is going to allow a public relations disaster like de-funding the war to go forward? The fact is when you talk about all these policies, defunding, pullout, etc., you're really going from your emotions over how we got into the war and not coping with the fact that we are there right now, whether it was right to go or not. Pulling out has consequences, both political and strategic. De-funding will have consequences, both political and strategic. The public is incredibly fickle, and the policies they back today they will turn on in half a second once things get ugly. Democratic politicians know this, that's the chief difference between them and their supporters. So while they're telling you up and down that they're going to get us out of Iraq and that will make everything right in the world again, the fact is it's a bald-faced lie. If they can't force us out of Iraq before they get in, the war and its funding will continue to drag on long into their terms in office.

So, the question is, how long till they parlay the expense of funding the war into tax increases? We know it's going to happen, whether they've got the guts to admit it or not.

Ok, there have been a few dramatic misrepresentations on here today that need to be corrected ASAP:

First, to the poster who said "people need to live within their means" well, I agree. The question is, shouldn't our nation as well? If deficit spending doesn't work in a household, then it doesn't work for a nation either. But to add a little additional clarity — despite what this poster would have us believe, people aren't living beyond their means because they are taking too many vacations, they are living beyond their means because wages are increasing at 2 and 3 percent a year, while gas, housing, and health care are experiencing dramatically higher increases. As a result, REAL income goes down, while the numbers appear to go up.

Second, to the poster who seems to feel that those of us arguing for some fiscal moderation are "attacking" the rich, nothing can be further from the truth. I respect the wealthy, and fully intend to count myself as part of that club one of these days. However I do recognize that both the "workers" and the "investors" contribute equally to our nation's prosperity, and I would just like to see a little more equity in how those two classes are taxed.

And three, let's be clear on what Rudy means when he says "tax increases" — he means that if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, then capital gains rates will go back to the level they were during the Clinton years (you know, those years when our nation was running a surplus) — which is a maximum of 20% — a full 15% less than the top earned income rate. So I don't think the millionaires and billionaires will be suffering too much.

You people keep writing about some phantom person as to take the position and fiscal responsibility of our nation and of our next President that dose not even exist on this planet.

Ken Said,"The Other David,from Clearwater, FL, forgot to mention the soaring national debt under the Bush administration, which negates any benefits those tax cuts might have had. Please wake up and stop using "fuzzy math"."

Actually I did say that GWB had a record deficit - please re-read my post. But I do also say that if you go to the citation in my first post that you would see that the deficit is rebounding back towards a surplus. I also attributed the deficit (National Debt)to include the ever increasing non-war pork barrel spending by all members of Congress, regardless of politcal affiliation. As for the tax cuts, again please read and go to the source I cited in my first post that shows that tax revenues have increased despite the Bush tax cuts. I am personally doubtful that giving Congress more of my hard earned income is going to do any good seeing as they cannot reign in spending. Collectively, they need to stop spending before they consider to heap additional taxes on anyone.

PS - There is no "fuzzy math" to my numbers. If you think there is, show me your numbers and your sources, please.

To David, of Salinas, CA. Are their any issues that you are not involved in and/or an expert on? You are every where! I am far from a man with riches monetarily; but I have a strong opinion what is right for the American people including my self and my grand children. That some people may be trying too lead the pack in a fight that is unattainable. I have enough common sense to understand that if the wealthy of our nation is taxed beyond repair will leave all people scared for life.

We all may bend over and give our own rears a good kiss bye, bye! Tax our conservative wealthy people of this nation for intelligence and earning their ways through life has contributed largely to our nations finances.

Take their investment earnings away intended for reinvestment purposes and we will end up with nothing to offer our grand children in their future. Fore conservatives to continue offering a stake in the American dream for the futures families of US citizens. Ponder on that one; some just act as if they are idiots.

(Please note: A similar post was deleted today. I would like to hear a good reason for deleting my posted comment).

I don't consider myself to be a hardcore Giuliani supporter, but I must say I'm impressed with some of the improvements he intends to make to our country's tax system! As is always the case in politics, though, one wonders if he (or any other politician) would follow through on these wonderful promises if he gets to the White House.

Rick (Chicago),

You asked for whom was the 22% increase in revenue? Answer: The US Treasury, so that means for all of us. Take a look at their figures at their website, unless you can't handle facts.

People like CEOs and board members who run the risk and earn the education to be in their positions deserve compensation for their accomplishments. I agree, as an investor in many companies, that they should be compensated for current accomplishments and not for the future or past, but I don't begrudge them their success, nor am I jealous. Why should you be? Have you been far less successful or wise in your life?

Consumer debt rises when people live beyond their means. People shouldn't spend what they don't make. If this means not having kids until you can afford to do so or not taking that vacation or whatever, then wait until you can afford it. Invest first in yourself and your capacity to provide for your needs.

The revenues are going to many of the earmarked projects coming out of the Dem-controlled Congress. Demand earmark reform.

I never advocated deregulation in my post, so please re-read before you accuse.

Mortgage industry woes: fat surprise! People who don't work or have good spending habits or don't read the contract completely can't pay mortgages! Why is anyone surprised?

Welfare for anyone is bankrupting our country. 50% of the US budget is spent in "entitlement" programs. Check out the budget.

When you understand what's going on with the energy companies, especially if you'd invested YOUR money in them, you'd understand why they are actually turning such a profit and why it's in YOUR interest as an energy consumer

I'm not Republicrat. I'm a Constitutionalist who believes that we should support our government to some extent but that it should never support us. It's what's led us to such debt and slavery to it.

Rick, your #'s on the war are false. Check out the actual appropriations and how LARGE the budget actually is. Otherwise, you just seem like a stupid, ill-educated Dem. We are spending FAR MORE on Medicaid, Welfare, SSI, Soc. Sec., etc. than we spend on the military conflicts at present.

As for showing Dems want to raise taxes, show me a Dem who ISN'T for Socialized, gov't-paid healthcare? They all are. Guess where the $$ comes from? All of us in the form of scary amounts of taxes.

My in-laws are from the UK. I can't believe all the taxes they pay for everything. It ALL goes to the Healthcare system and the gov't employess (now 1 in 5 UK subjects works for the gov't).

Besides, the ultimate question regarding taxes is: Why should ANYONE have more right to what you earn than you??

Neither party — Republican or Democrat — has the answers to solving major national and global issues. One key is to find/elect representation committed to solving problems, together, for the common good of the USA and the world. This country needs representation that is truly "for the people" rather than the uncompromising bipartisan system we have in place, today.

To Kevin in Seattle:

You ask what's wrong with a system that lets everybody keep their own money and take care of all of their own responsibilities.

The problem is that the very people who advocate such a system are the ones who are adamant about keeping wages for the labor class as low as possible.

The guy who works hard all day at $10 or $15 an hour has a hard enough time feeding, clothing, and housing his family without ALSO having to cover the full cost of education, health care, and retirement — there just aren't enough sheckles to go around.

One of the biggest disservices the anti-tax community does to this debate is try to paint all people at the lower end of the economic spectrum as being lazy and greedy. Yes, there are some bad apples in the bunch. There are also some wealthly people that lie, cheat, and steal. In both instances the many should not be punished for the actions of the few.

If we as a nation are going to honor the principles upon which we were founded, then we need to get serious about making certain that everyone who is willing to work diligently to the best of their ability be paid a living wage and be provided with a safety net for when things go awry. That is NOT the same thing as welfare or handouts. It is simply recognizing that the labor class plays as important a role to our society as the visionaries, entrepreneurs, and managers.

If we are willing to make certain that everyone who is willing to work gets paid a wage sufficient for them to live with some dignity, then I have no problem placing more responsibility into individuals' hands, and reducing taxes accordingly. Until that day, though, we need to take some responsibility for the ones who labors play a role in our affluence.

To the posters who claim that Americans are paying "half" or "most" of their paychecks to the government, I have to wonder, where are you getting your numbers?

The payroll tax is 7.65%, and that only applies to the first $97,500.00 of income. The TOP federal marginal tax rate is 35%, but your taxable income has to reach $336,551 before that rate goes into effect, and by that point the payroll tax is a distant memory. When you add in state tax, property tax, and sales tax you theoretically MIGHT be able to get to 50% combined, but that is only for people making HUGE amounts of earned income, and assumes that you don't have a single deduction and spend every dollar on something subject to sales tax, which is highly unlikely.

The reality is that most households with incomes of $50K or less pay little or no income tax, and most citizens with incomes of several hundred thousand or more have the bulk of their taxable income (which is often a much smaller number than their total income) at the lower capital gains rate of 15%. It is the people in the middle — those making between $50K and $500K that feel the biggest tax pinch, but even for them the combined rate is no where near 50%.

Yes, taxes take a large portion of our income, and whether the burden is too high is worth having, but you do yourself and your positions a disservice when you exagerage the numbers in an effort to strike fear into people's hearts.

The Other David,from Clearwater, FL, forgot to mention the soaring national debt under the Bush administration, which negates any benefits those tax cuts might have had. Please wake up and stop using "fuzzy math".

Anonymous from Somewhere, MI writes:
“I'll give credence to anyone criticizing Giuliani's position on taxes when they can point me to the candidate in the race promising to raise taxes.”

We don’t need to raise taxes to balance the budget., Anonymous. We just need to stop throwing trillions down a rat hole in Iraq.

Giuliani won’t stop funding the war. Neither will Romney, Thompson, McCain or the rest of the Republicans. The Democrats will. That’s one of the things that make them the fiscally responsible party.

Even if the war in Iraq was essential to American security, (which of course it isn’t), I don’t see why we should be funding it on credit cards. If the Republicans all believe in this war, THEY should be raising taxes to pay for it, (and sacrificing their own assets, and selling Liberty Bonds, and doing something beyond writing checks on their grandchildren’s accounts).

There are some good comments on this board, and I’ve learned a lot. But not one person has responded to my original point: Show me how Mayor Giuliani’s numbers add up.

I see that Rudy has honed his weasel wording already. He says vote for me or there will be a huge tax increase. DYH!! And how else does he plan to stop the borrow and spend policy of the Bushites? Obviously he is either lying about his own plans or he will continue to did that debt hole deeper. Since he natters about tax cuts I expect that Rudy Bush III will be a clone of the corrput incompetent ruinous policy of the last 7 years. And he joins the Democrats in the sell out of the American workers with the immigration policy of total surrender. Rudy Bush - an idea whose time will never come.

I'll give credence to anyone criticizing Giuliani's position on taxes when they can point me to the candidate in the race promising to raise taxes. Go on, look at your candidate's web page and try to find the spot where he or she says "I will raise taxes." Won't find those words on Obama's page. In fact, he's campaigning on expanding low income tax breaks. Hillary won't say those words either. Edwards buries his actual intent in deflecting language. He says he'll reverse Bush's tax policies, but what he doesn't say is that this will increase taxes. Any of you out there hazard a guess as to why none of these candidate will say "I will raise taxes?" Two words sum it up: Walter Mondale. So, while you're busy waxing high and mighty about Giuliani's stance on taxes, remember, nobody out there you support is campaigning on doing what you'd like to see done with the tax code.

I guess this is why New York has the highest taxes in the country.

Vote Ron Paul 2008

Trica asks, "And are those the only accomplishments you can cite? What are your accomplishments in the Political arena?"

Apparently you have not been paying attention. First, he was a Republican the got elected and re-elected to be Mayor of one of, if not the, most liberal cities in the US. That's an obvious accomplishment in the political arena. Second, his credential concerning crime cannot be matched by any other candidate, Republican and Democrat. He was responsible for some of the biggest cases ever prosecuted against organize crime and white collar crime that this country has ever seen. He then proceeded from his courtroom successes to slash crime in NYC by half during his first term in office as Mayor of NYC. Third, he was responsible for turning around the reputation of NYC. Before taking office, many had written off NYC as a decaying pool of violence. Look at NYC now. Anyone who has lived through the change can attest that it was clearly positive. There are many other things that he accomplished, but space is not permitting.

My point on this is that I know these facts because Mr. Giuliani has discussed all of these things many times. To say that he has not is –frankly- laughable. But, since you are not in the know, I hope some of the above helped to answer your questions.

We have a huge debt. 11 to 75 trillion if you include unfunded, but promised liabilities. Business as usual is not OK. Raising the taxes just decreases taxable activities, and hence revenues. Think lowering the other side of the equation. The "poor" need to quit complaining. We have enough poor in the US. Don't have kids if you don't have an education, at least two job skills and cash in the bank ($12,000 per kid per year). Keep your pants zipped up. Welfare recipients must be either on mandatory birth control, (think Norplant) or sterilized. We need to limit immigrants to the rich, who will then have the pants taxed off of them (Think Canada). 40% of the citizens don't pay federal income tax. That's a scam. "All men are created equal" and the rich don't use all of those social systems that cost so much. And, if you want more services for the poor, you pay for it, quit spending other people's money. Enclose your check for $100,000 if you want free healthcare and education for illegal immigrants, for instance. By the way, if you vote against abortion, then take at least 3 foster kids (without compensation) or shut the F up.

The Republican pandering about the inheritance tax is truly absurd. It only affects estates worth over $2 million for which the owners had done no financial planning, but they try to make it out to be some big evil that threatens the ruin of every mom and pop business or family farm.

Yet, they don't say what they would do to make up for the revenue lost if this tax on estates over $2 million was eliminated. It's truly irresponsible.

Regarding increases in the GDP and tax revenues…

During the past 45 years or so (since about 1962), government revenues have increased every year except once during the early 70s, and once a few years ago. Unless there is a recession/contraction, revenues will increase. The question is at what rate do revenues increase. The truth is the eight years prior to Reagan, revenues increased at a HIGHER rate. Similarly, during the Clinton years, revenues increased at a HIGHER rate than during both Reagan's presidency AND Bush's presidency.

Tax cuts can be a good idea to spur the economy. Gov't spending can also increase the GDP. The point being that at some point they are going to be off-balance. After all, the optimum tax rate isn't zero. In fact, it can fluctuate depending on circumstances.

That said, it is important to have priorities, and to stop promising everything to everyone. What Giuliani is doing is making further promises without any sacrifices elsewhere.

It is time that we had a politician that showed some basic fiscal principles, that if they are going to cut taxes, where will they cut services, and vice versa as well.

Giuliani is not doing that. Nor does he have the record of doing it. He's making promises with checks that will be cashed by foreign creditors, and the bill paid by future generations.

I have only 1 question to anyone out there who can answer this one…

If the government takes most of my money from my check, and then puts it into a pool controlled by ALL voters, it might not go where I want it, however if they cut those taxes and give me more money, but tell me that I'm responsible for my health care, social security, etc, then I get to dictate where it goes. So tell me again where the failure in this system is?

Dems want us to be taxed and have our money thrown into a government, and populous, controlled pot. This makes my tax dollars less effective for me, and more effective for joe down the street who decides he doesn't want to work because welfare will take care of him. However republicans tell me I can have my money and do with it what I want, but I'm responsible for myself, and if I mess up, it's my own darn fault. Why are people so frightened of that approach?

To Ru B:

How do you come to the determination that President Bush's tax cuts generated a 22% increase in tax revenues? Just because tax revenues have increased during the time he has been in office DOESN'T mean that the tax cuts were the cause. During that same period of time, the price of milk, gas, education and health care have ALSO increased dramatically — should we give the tax cuts credit for those increases as well?

The fact is that "trickle down" economics don't work. They didn't work during the Reagan administration, they aren't working during the Bush administration, and if Mr. Guiliani is fortunate enough to get elected, they won't work during his administration either.

Having said all of that, I AM in favor of tax cuts. But the tax cuts I would like to see would be ones that actually stimulate the economy, as opposed to making those already rich get richer. Substantial increases in education deductions/credits, tax incentives to start and develop small businesses, increased deductibity and streamlining of retirement saving, and modifying the AMT to allow it to do what it was originally put into place to do would all serve to revitalize our dangerously imperiled middle class and directly energize our economy, which would ultimately benefit us all.

Tim in GA:

Your answer is Ron Paul–plain and simple.

Lance said: “Can't deny cold hard figures right? B.S. So the rich is making a ton of money.” Could also define what rich means? And,yes, I did cite facts (and not the wikipedia kind that I see on most blogs). So, yes, where are you facts to back up your opinon?

“oh, and you think you're paying less taxes? Bought gas lately? That's right, you're paying a gasoline tax every time you fill up. At least a dollar or more is going directly to the Saudis and China.” So, adding additional taxes by recinding the Bush tax cuts is going to somehow improve that situation?

"Before you start throwing around figures, really do some homework. Read something besides Bill Oriellys transcripts".

This isn’t from O’Rielly. This is from me. I showed up with cited facts – where are yours? If you can’t bring cited facts to disprove what I’ve shown – that is truly BS.
======================================

Rick: You said:
“You're now 0-1.”

I guess if you don’t believe the official numbers – cited for review - you’re not going to believe anything. Let’s see your facts and citations.

“The war we're spending the MOST money on was a war of choice.” …….
“You’re now 0-2”

Excuse me, war of choice or not (I never did make that distinction, you did) – the GDP is still increasing, the money is still being spent on the wars and the tax revenues are still increasing with the tax cuts in place. Those are the facts. The tax policies are doing the job by putting more money into the pockets of taxpayers.

“You mean thanks to the Republican fuzzy math and morphing definitions Dubya uses” No, I mean by the Official reports issued by the US Treasury Department. Don’t you read anything that is cited or do you just keep on bleating without checking the facts? The report shows, yes GWB has caused the biggest deficit, but we are on track to balancing the budget again eventhough the tax cuts are in place.

Out? I think not. If you want to rail, how about railing against Congress’ inability to stop spending increases? The war is just one component of this. I made it clear that this wasn’t a one-party issue – the whole of Congress – regardless of political stripe – seem to be unable to curb and reduce spending.

And to both of you, Lance and Rick, the discussion was about tax policy and how Rudy Guiliani was going to continue the current tax cuts. How about staying on topic?

How refreshing!
No swipes, no verbal attacks.

Ghoulianis' achievements in the political realm are the same as any Repug……..cater to the wealthy and manipulate the ignorant.

I'm very glad these Repugs were not around when FDR led us out of the Great Depression with innovated thinking and compassion. Can you imagine what this country would look like if they had been?

I'm just really glad these people weren't around when FDR led us out of the Great Depression, makes you wonder what this country would look like if they had been.

Whats up with all the Ron Paul plants?

"Which leads me to the question, What were those accomplishments as Mayor of New York City Mr. Giuliani? "

Good question. Perhaps the NYC firefighters can illuminate us on some of the 9/11 Mayor's achievements.

Oh wait…

That's just a continuation of our present tax policy. When is someone going to have the nads to REALLY reform the tax system instead of creating more loopholes for the top 1% of earners?

"Citing his accomplishments as the mayor of New York City, Giuliani said his tax cuts in the city, although they were against conventional wisdom at the time, helped stimulate the economy, attract business and slash unemployment."

Which leads me to the question, What were those accomplishments as Mayor of New York City Mr. Giuliani? And are those the only accomplishments you can cite? What are your accomplishments in the Political arena?

To the above poster throwing out figures…. Can't deny cold hard figures right? B.S. So the rich is making a ton of money. Where's it going? Into their overseas accounts and into businesses in other countries, sweatshops that are building all our products in china and mexico and the ukraine. This is the same thing we've been doing to third world countries for years, and now corps are doing it to us too. Think they give a crap about America, hell no? They're a machine that is blind and deaf.

Oh, and how about that booming job economy? Have you looked around at the jobs lately? If you want to work at Wal Mart or Home Depot you've got it made in the shade, but that's about it.

You can't sustain that kind of economy. We've become a nation of consumers. You know who owns our steel plant, who broke the unions and rehired the same employees at lower wages? India. Huge indian companies now own our steele mills the same way that the Arab States own our ports for us.

I'm sick of allowing my country to be sold off to the highest bidder piece by piece so little minded greedy people can get big tax breaks.

oh, and you think you're paying less taxes? Bought gas lately? That's right, you're paying a gasoline tax every time you fill up. At least a dollar or more is going directly to the Saudis and China. They loan us our own money back at much higher interest. Again, exactly how we've been screwing Latin America for years, keeping them totally dependant on outside sources.

the brilliant neocon supergeniuses that thought all this up are great at the numbers game.

Before you start throwing around figures, really do some homework. Read something besides Bill Oriellys transcripts.

You can start by reading "Armed Madhouse." Greg Pallast's book. It's at Borders or the Library. He lays out the entire monetary cycle and how all the money gets moved out of this country and we get the shaft.

They're selling you a line buddy. I'm really serious. Educate yourself, then make informed comments about how GREAT the economy is.

L

The Other David, Fla,

Read my post to Ru B concerning that "wonderful" revenue from the tax cuts and that "booming" economy.

You're now 0-1.

Now I'll continue from there.

"but that president was fighting two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq)"

The war we're spending the MOST money on was a war of choice. We're currently spending FIVE times more per month on Iraq due to Dubya's inability to listen to people who know what they're talking about rather than ignore and/or retire them. He doesn't get to use that as an excuse - and neither do you.

You're now 0-2.

"and the deficit is now currently shrink back towards a surplus."

You mean thanks to the Republican fuzzy math and morphing definitions Dubya uses? Where flipping burgers = manufacturing? Where CEO pay is included as salary in its “average” salary calculations? And no numbers are EVER adjusted for inflation?

So let me guess … you believed the grossly inflated 2004 White House projected deficit numbers that Dubya used when he said that he "cut the deficit in half" - even though conservatives (like Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation) disagree, right?

You're now 0-3.

"Fas [fas?] as I can see, the fiscal tax-cutting policies of President Bush have been working."

LOL .. strike THREE .. you're OUT!

Better luck on your next post buddy.

To Ru B, New Hampshire:

Your points about the Social Security fund are well taken, but they are hardly a defense of Republican deficit spending and the mushrooming national debt. The fact remains that Clinton kept spending in check, and Bush did not.

Your comments about the rich being a minority deserving of government protection would be laughable, except that’s just how our current system treats them.

To Kojo:

Your point about the tech boom during the Clinton years is valid too, but doesn’t excuse the Bush administration’s reckless deficit spending, either. Maybe Clinton got lucky, but Bush is still reckless.

I’m not pushing radical populist economics and certainly President Clinton wasn’t. But it’s the trickle-down economics that don’t work, because loopholes and lawyers ensure that not much trickles. The rich ARE getting richer and the poor ARE getting poorer and you can take that to the bank.

And to David from Clearwater FL:

Increases in GNP don’t translate to increases in economic advances for average Americans, who remain underpaid, uninsured and under threat of foreclosure. Yes, the economy is doing well by some metrics, but millions of Americans aren’t benefitting from the gains at Haliburton and Exxon.

It’s not what portions of total tax burden paid by the rich that counts, it’s their ability to pay. (This is subtle, but it’s one of the big lies of voodoo economics). Sure the rich pay more of the total taxes. But the middle-class pays more than we can afford, and the rich don’t come close.

As to my definition of rich, it’s not exact, but certainly I’m not talking about people making 100K (or even 300K on paper). I do think Warren Buffet and Rupert Murdoch should be hit up for a larger share.

Final point: all of your arguments ignore the real spending and the real debt incurred in the irresponsible war in Iraq. If this expenditure was truly about our nation’s defense I could see your point, but it wasn’t. It was money wasted - trillions of dollars of our children’s money. That’s not fiscal conservatism and you are all smart enough to know it.

Thank you all for your excellent and respectful posts.

Ru B, New Hampshire,

"Bush's tax cuts created a HUGE revenue increase of 22%"

For WHO? Board members and CEOs? The people who make more in a damn DAY now than most workers make in a YEAR? Funny how consumer debt has risen along with that revenue you speak of. The tax cuts haven't done much of anything for anybody but the rich - since that's where most of the tax cuts went. And I can guarantee you they got more than 300 bucks too didn't they?

If that revenue was so "HUGE", then why are we barely paying off the INTEREST on what we've borrowed then?

"they don't want us to know how effective it is if we make them take their hands off"

Really .. is that why your "hands off" free market and deregulation approach has led to corporate buyouts and mergers that have DECREASED competition which have raised prices for goods and services?

Is that why their "hands off" of the mortgage industry has led to record foreclosures that is now effecting the rest of the economy too? So much so that the federal reserve (like European and Japanese banks) have had to infuse 38 BILLION of liquidity into it to stop EVERYBODY'S economy from going south via bailing out investment firms who took on more then they could chew? Why aren't you complaining about THAT?

Because welfare for the RICH is OK right?

Why aren't you complaining about the republicans writing energy bills with the help of the energy companies that have seen RECORD profits as a result? Isn't that another violation of your "hands off" policy?

Could it be because you're a hypocrite? Could it be because you're a Republican who thinks anything that makes the rich richer at the expense of anybody who's NOT is great economics?

I suggest you find a FOX blog and post there. And I hope your ignorance some day becomes painful.

Only one candidate can say the following:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

His name is Ron Paul. Give him a chance.

The 'First' David asked,"When are some of the true conservatives out there going to demand that their candidates’ numbers add up?"

GOOD QUESTION. The answers are that since 1999 - pre-Bush tax cuts - ,

"Real GDP (in 2000 dollars) 1999: $9,470Billion 2006: $11,319Billion"

Citation: Louis D. Johnston and Samuel H. Williamson, "The Annual Real and Nominal GDP for the United States, 1790 - Present." Economic History Services, October 2005, URL : http://www.eh.net/hmit/gdp/

So, the economy has been booming.

As for US Tax Revenue - since 2000 - and pre-Bush Tax Cuts,
"Federal Tax Revenue 2000: $2,010Billion 2005: $2,150Billion

Citation: John Snow, US Treasury Secretary report Dec 8, 2005

So, I guess those nasty tax cuts really hurt us, huh?

And David is right that we had budget surplusses during the Clinton Administration - but that president was fighting two wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) - and the deficit is now currently shrink back towards a surplus - depite wars, despite tax cuts, and despite our Congress' (both parties, I might add) inability to reign in spending.

Democrats are no more fiscally conservative than Republicans these days from a spending standpoint. At least the tax cuts have stimulated our economy enough to carry most of those spending increases.

One last thing, David to David - please define what 'Rioh' means. $100K, $300K, $1Millon plus income?

If you are talking about the $300K and up club, they constitue the current top 1% of earners yet pay and account for over 36% of all income tax revenues collected.

Citation: September 25, 2006,
"Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data"
by Gerald Prante
Fiscal Fact No. 66

Fas as I can see, the fiscal tax-cutting policies of President Bush have been working. We really need to get Congress to stop porking our dollars away. That's what a true fiscal conservative (of any politcal stripe) would want. If that is what Rudy is for, then he has my vote.

From reading this article, the message is clear: Rudy will be more of the same. We will still pay HALF of what we work for to the government. Giuliani's meaningless tripe will not alleviate anything.

Unfortunately, the majority of people in the US don't mind WORKING HALF OF THE YEAR FOR THE GOVERNMENT, as they've shown through their action (inaction) and accepted this corrupt policy.

So, if you want more of the same, go ahead vote a democrat or republican into office. If you truly want things in this country to change; if you want to keep your ENTIRE paycheck; if you don't want your HARD-EARNED money to lose value due to inflation; if you don't want the government to BLOW your money with ridiculous spending; if you want YOUR kids to have a bright future, not enslaved by debt and taxes, vote Ron Paul.

What ever happened to Fair and Balanced and America First?

Bush isn’t known for Brains!

We got to do better than That!

David your wrong,Clinton was lucky to be in office at a time of the tech boom and even by the time he was leaving office the economy had started slowing down.Just look at Europe were they tax the rich heavily and look how bad their economies are doing.
Generally people dont like the Rich but populist economics dont work in reeality.DEmocrat economic policies failed badly in the 1960,s and 70's and even France is now talking about tax cuts.

This policy would further add to the debt that will come due for our children and grand children. Thanks Rudy.

David,

Clinton balanced the budget by robbing the Soc. Sec. fund. He also stole the Soc. Sec. contributions of non-citizens (who can't vote so why care about them?) by making sure they can't ever apply for them without becoming a votable citizen.

So you suggest we elect someone who would continue to rob us, our children, our spouses? Just what we need: more dishonesty.

Bush's tax cuts created a HUGE revenue increase of 22%. Based on a $3 TRILLION budget, that's gigantic. It more than pays for the Iraq War, however, you'll never hear the media report these things nor the Dems tout these facts. Why should they? They want to control our pocketbooks, so they don't want us to know how effective it is if we make them take their hands off.

Besides, aren't the Dems for the minorities? The rich are a minority, so why won't they fight for their rights to keep the fruits of their labor? Why should the Dems try so hard to take from those who do try and succeed to give to those who don't make good or successful choices?

I may not be for Guiliani, but I am definitely for Americans keeping and spending the money they earn themselves.

Hey Rudolph, guess what?

My kid's school doesnt have text books, my wife and I constantly worry we may get hurt, lose our jobs and thus our shoddy at best HMO healthcare, as a country we now owe more money than the country has in the banks to China for stupid wars, our cities are starting to look like third world countries with homeless people living in tents and parks.

Our military is broken. Our manufacturing jobs are gone. Our forests and icecaps are being eaten alive by global warming.

We are facing another dustbowl. Illigal immigration is used as a political tool instead of being solved. We're building 20 Billion dollar submarines to fight terrorists in canoes. Over 4,000 soldiers are dead and many more thousands horribly wounded.

Our country is divided.

Stem cells could cure millions but don't. Instead of finding solutions we pander to the pious. Gasoline costs 3 dollars a gallon and instead of taxing they'll give you higher and higher "gas taxes" by raising prices of oil, going directly to the Saudis, who will then loan us more money at interest our kids will never pay.

We are losing our homes by the millions in foreclosure. Why? Thanks to Bush's deregulation of the morgage industry. He did the same for Enron and that worked just as well.

Hey, here's an idea for Rudolph Guiliani and the rest of these muddy, greedy pigs. Stop playing to your idiotic, superstitious, terrified base and the super wealthiest .1 percent of the country and start talking about the real issues that will determine our fate in the next twenty years.

I am terribly sick and tired of hearing these neocons like Guliani spout out about how we should lower taxes and how everything is just dandy.

The economy is in the toilet we've morgaged our future thanks to the Republican greed machine.

But guess what Rudolph… Today's pig is tomorrow's bacon. The Republican party, thanks to bad ideas like your tax cuts, have joined the way of the dinosaur you probably don't even believe walked the earth 6,000 years ago.

When are Republicans like Rudolph going to step up and say, "Hey, guess what America. We're in a mess and we actually have to get involved. We have to sacrifice. We have to actually participate in the world instead of just sitting back and collecting our tax refunds.

I want good schools, I want healthcare that works. I want an end to war and a decent life for our vets as well as the rest of us.

I want to address the fact that the ice caps are becoming ice cubes while the Repubs figure out the best way to drill for oil there is. Their greed is astounding.

What happened to an America of "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country?" Hasn't it dawned on these neomorons that maybe we're willing to sacrfice a bit, maybe we're not all lazy, racist whores to the oil industry?

Hasn't it dawned on Rudolph that we're looking for something a bit better than "Let them eat cake."

I spent my 320 dollar tax cut pretty fast and so did everybody else. Is it worth my kid using a textbook from 1960 Rudolph? Is it really?

That 200 Billion tax break to HMOs and big oil came in pretty handy to your campaign though, huh?

I am tired of a government that runs on autopilot. I am tired of them saying "government is the problem not the solution."

Guess what Rudolph? You're right, government is the problem. Guys like YOU are the problem. And the solution is to boot you to the back of the bus where you'd like to seat 99.99 percent of the American Public.

I am conservative. That's why I'm voting for Barrack Obama, at least he calls a pig a pig when he sees it.

Give that a tax break!

When are some of the true conservatives out there going to demand that their candidates’ numbers add up?

Mayor Giuliani (and the rest of the leading Republicans) want to keep slashing taxes on the rich, subsidizing major corporations, and spending trillions on an irresponsible war. Where is this money going to come from? Their answer is they’re going to keep borrowing it from China.

Take an honest look at the math and face some facts: when it comes to our finances the Democrats have been the truly conservative party since the day Bill Clinton took office in 1992.
He left us with a balanced budget, and President Bush spent us back into debt like a drunken sailor on shore leave. Now Giuliani wants to keep the spree going. This new breed of Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility while they’re running up our children’s credit cards. Their economics are based entirely on mortgaging our future. We literally can’t afford to let them.

Take a hard look at Giuliani’s numbers. If you’re a true fiscal conservative, you’ll vote for a Democrat.

(Note: This post was deleted once. I’d like to know why).

By and large, Republican economic policies continue to pander to the rich. "Common good," indeed.

He's right but Romney has more credibility on this issue.