January 27, 2009 8:31 AM
Poundstone takes aim at taxes, government
Freda Poundstone's latest assault on government and taxes would slash taxes and fees on everything from car registrations to telephone bills.
Lynn Bartels reports:
(Poundstone's proposed ballot measure) bears a resemblance to a measure that former Rep. Douglas Bruce, of Colorado Springs, failed to get through the legislature last year.Critics howled over the ballot proposal.
"This would destroy government as we know it," said Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver.
"And it comes at a time when citizens are asking government to provide more solutions, more jobs, more health care," Romer said.
All levels of government would feel the impact if the ballot measure passed.
It calls for drastically reducing the "sales ownership" tax when Coloradans buy cars - money that now goes to counties. It also eliminates a telecommunications fee that the state uses to help rural and mountainous areas get affordable phone service.
"This isn't going to destroy government," Poundstone said. "Government is not easy to destroy - it seems to be growing when nothing else is. I think the reduction of some taxes would be helpful."
But Colorado already is dealing with a revenue shortfall that could hit $1 billion next fiscal year.
Poundstone, the former mayor of Greenwood Village, is the author of the Poundstone Amendment, which caught the anti-busing wave of the 1970s and prohibited Denver (which was court-ordered to bus children to achieve racial balance in its schools) from annexing portions of other counties unless residents in those areas approved.
January 27, 2009
9:04 AM
Shaggy writes:
""And it comes at a time when citizens are asking government to provide more solutions, more jobs, more health care," Romer said."
Your an idiot Romer, people want less of Government screwing up everything they touch.
Yet we have Barry wanting to enlarge Government by 600,000 people paid for by tax dollars.
Democrats want us to rely on Government to provide.
It is called welfare.
It is SOCIALISM!
January 27, 2009
9:29 AM
freeomalley writes:
Where can I send my contribution to the cause and sign the petition?
January 27, 2009
9:46 AM
JMH writes:
Whaaaa... socialism... You know they have no answers when the NeoCons whine about socialism.
Funny, as Bush expanded the government, even in terms of trying to thrust it into "morality" and our personl lives, you cheered...
But now the American people have shifted to the left and want govenrment to try to help get us out of this mess and you cry and want to obstruct?
The truth is, the GOP is nothing but a destructive force in this country anymore. The GOP has no new ideas and the ones it did have all turned into failures. Now Americans have VOTED to try something new and what does the GOP do? It tries to get in the way of any progress or attempts at turning this thing around.
I'm not suprised that shaggy, being the good tin soldier he is, wants us to fail at turning this country around. His zen-master - ol' Rush-bo - has already given his puppets orders and said flat out he wants this country to fail!
This is just another play out of the GOP "How to Destroy America" playbook... since the GOP has been voted out of power across the whole country and can no longer enrich their super-rich supporters at our expense, they want to destroy government. If they can't use it for thier personal goals anymore, we can't either... seems to be the idea behind this...
Sorry NeoCons, you have done enough damage to this country, we no longer care what you think! Either help us turn this ship around or get the f*ck out of the way! Like it or not, we are in this together...
This is a pretty good opinion piece that I think pertains to this GOP idea of getting in the way and opposing everything WE try to do...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/27/zelizer.republicans/index.html
It is an interesting read and if the GOP keeps this up, they can expect even more of a public backlash.
January 27, 2009
9:48 AM
history buff writes:
Poundstone is another Limbaugh follower who believes in hillbilly heaven and free hillbilly heroin. A shotgun shack, a dirt road and a meal of greasy fried opossum is all that is needed in life. In her world, anyone who graduates beyond the sixth grade is a liberal elitist. We don't need police because people have gun rights and they can protect themselves. We don't need firemen because fire is God's will, as is disease, accidents and methamphetamine.
January 27, 2009
9:57 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
TAX CUTS ARE FRIENDLY TO CAPITAL, JOBS, INCOMES AND PROSPERITY:
Out of $355 billion newly appropriated, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that only $26 billion will be spent this fiscal year and only $110 billion by the end of 2010. Using long, drawn-out processes to put money into circulation to meet an emergency is like mailing a letter to the fire department to tell them that your house is on fire.
If you cut taxes tomorrow, people would have more money in their next paycheck, and it would probably be spent by the time they got that paycheck, through increased credit card purchases beforehand. If all this sound and fury in Washington was about getting an economic crisis behind us, tax cuts could do that a lot faster.
January 27, 2009
10:08 AM
JMH writes:
SAS...
We had 8 years of tax cuts for the rich and deficit spending... Hate to pull you back into facing reality, but it isn't working now and hasn't for years, if ever...
Take the blinders off nitwit!
Please NeoCons, quit thinking we aren't paying attention. Your idiology has run this country into the ground and you expect us to "stay the course" with more of the same? LOL... You have all lost all credibilty whan it comes to the economy and when it comes to what is best for America... If you had any clue, after 8 years of GOP power, we wouldn't be in this mess...
January 27, 2009
10:11 AM
peterpi writes:
"Poundstone takes aim at taxes, government"
I think the copy editors left out two words: "in Denver".
She froze Denver in place, but let the suburbs run wild. Her complaint wasn't and has never been about growth. Her beef is growth by Denver. Suburbs are annexing on a "march through the plains", Aurora wants to be Kansas City's neighbor, and Poundstone hasn't lifted a finger.
If I'm reading this directly, she's attacking only state taxes. Suburbs can tax all they want.
And that's cute, attacking a fund that helps mountain towns get telecommunications services and decent Internet access: "I've got mine, you go to hell!" I wonder if she's a charter member of the Libertarian Party and a lifelong member of the Ayn Rand Worship ClubI wonder if she ever paid back those government-issued credit card overcharges.
January 27, 2009
10:12 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
BOTTOM LINE: If taxes and fee-hikes are the answer, then we could tax and fee-hike our way to prosperity. Does anyone really belive that is possible other than Obama and Ritter?
Capital and its jobs, incomes and prosperity will always flee hostile environments and move to where it is treated best. If you want less of something, then hike its taxes. If you want more of something, then cut its taxes. This does not require a "Blue Ribbon" Commission to understand--its common sense.
January 27, 2009
10:37 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
"We had 8 years of tax cuts for the rich and deficit spending... Hate to pull you back into facing reality, but it isn't working now and hasn't for years, if ever"
What did any tax cut at any time in American history ever have any impact on any sub-prime based credit-market problesms as we now have? Do you know the difference between monrtary and fiscal policy? How did any tax cuts cause Fannie and Freddie to implode and collapse?
You have no idea what the hell happened in financial and credit markets that produced today's problems. So you blame fiscal policy and Bush? Are you really that clueless and that profoundly stupid?
Your question is a non-sequitur (look it up yourself), it can only be the product od scrambled eggs for brains.
And when was the last time one of you poor guys ever hire anyone?
January 27, 2009
10:38 AM
JW writes:
"BOTTOM LINE: If taxes and fee-hikes are the answer, then we could tax and fee-hike our way to prosperity. Does anyone really belive that is possible other than Obama and Ritter? "
This is the problem with you ideological idiots; At the same time you are mischaracterizing the party you hate, youre engaging in a false choice fallacy regarding what you support.
So, wtf am I talking about?
Well, this idiot is saying Obama wants to "tax and fee-hike our way to prosperity" even though this is the opposite of Obama's current policy. Hes calling for TAX CUTS you moron.
Secondly, the idea put forth here is one of tax hikes bad, tax cuts good. False choice. Those arent the only factors necessary, nor are they the only choices. First off, we could leave taxes at current levels. Second, we could raise some types of taxes (or lower) while lowering some other kinds (or raise) or leave some level and raise or lower others....
Anyway, idiot Republicans continually say that tax cuts are the only way to go, even though the Bush 1/Clinton years show this to be false to a degree it really is idiotic.
Tax cuts=Economic growth is true SOMETIMES. Its not true ALL THE TIME. Therefore, its not fit for the foundation of a policy ideology, and all you morons who take it as such have no business making decisions. The only reason you should be allowed to vote is because according to our "Values" in this country, even rank fools like yourself have voting rights.
January 27, 2009
10:50 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
"Hes calling for TAX CUTS you moron."
Tax cuts for 95% of Americans--40% of whom don't pay any income taxes? Dhuuuuuuuuuu!
And you call me a moron? That equation doesn't pass a 1st grade arithmetic test. You have to be an imbecile/savant to make that one work.
January 27, 2009
11:04 AM
JW writes:
"And you call me a moron? That equation doesn't pass a 1st grade arithmetic test. You have to be an imbecile/savant to make that one work."
Yes I call you a moron, guess why?
"Tax cuts for 95% of Americans--40% of whom don't pay any income taxes? Dhuuuuuuuuuu!"
So? Does this mean he is raising taxes? No. Just means hes wrong about the percentage of people who get the cuts. Hes still cuting taxes, fuckwit.
January 27, 2009
11:18 AM
history buff writes:
Tax cuts at the state level potentially affect state revenue because Colorado by law must balance its budget. The federal government is not restrained. But when tax cuts force the federal government to borrow, the government competes with the private sector for money that could be used for private investment. The problem with the Bush tax cuts were that there was no attempt to balance the budget. The failure to raise taxes to pay for a costly war, for the first time in our history, put tremendous pressure on the credit markets.
I know the Republicans like to pass the buck and blame the Democrats and Freddie and Fannie for all our problems, but there was pressure from developers who wanted to sell houses, from the financial sector that wanted to lend money and then sell mortgage backed securities to make more money, and to sell credit swaps to make more money on top of making money. Mortgage brokers wanted to earn more fees, real estate agents wanted to earn more commissions, title companies wanted to expand their businesses, lenders wanted to sell their high interest rate mortgages. Not all those people were Democrats. There was a frenzy over real estate, and the shortfall between what was needed to make all the payments and the earnings of Americans was made up by borrowing against home equity or by expanding unsecured credit by amassing credit card debt.
Clinton's balanced budget contributed to prosperity. It looks like we may never have a balanced budget again because of the Bush deficits and the current need for the government to infuse cash into the private sector to keep the wheels from falling off the economy.
I think most people understand that the increase in government spending is a temporary solution. We need a functioning private sector to rebuild our economy in the long run. But if we are going to use the government to stimulate the economy, then why not build roads, schools, public building, bridges and the like so that we have capital improvements that will last for awhile instead of having the government investment consumed by executive salaries, bonuses and other corporate frills?
January 27, 2009
11:23 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
BRAZIL=STIMULUS---OBAMA=WELFARE:
As the U.S. seeks to get its economy going by building roads, bridges and bicycle paths, Brazil has decided to create jobs and move toward energy independence by investing in its energy infrastructure and the crude oil that lies just off its pristine beaches.
Brazil's Petrobras announced on Friday that it plans to spend $175 billion on developing its huge recent offshore oil finds through 2013. A $29 billion spending plan for this year will be financed in part on loans from Brazil's state development bank.
"This is not a rescue," Petrobras CEO Jose Sergio Gabrielli told reporters in Rio de Janeiro. "This is very different than what is happening in other countries like the USA. This is not a bailout."
No indeed. It's an investment that fosters energy independence, keeps Brazil's energy dollars at home, creates jobs and generates a favorable trade balance.
"The volumes of investments will have an important macroeconomic impact in Brazil," said Gabrielli.
Such investments could have a similar beneficial impact on the American economy, and the irony is that the oil companies are willing to use their own money here if we let them. Yet, even more restrictions on U.S. domestic production are planned. America's energy is "out of bounds."
Thanks in part to a relentless pursuit of domestic energy resources, the Brazilian economy grew 5.8% in 2008 and is projected to expand 2.9% even in a tough 2009, according to the median estimate of 16 economists surveyed by Bloomberg.
We could do the same right here in the USA. Capital could flood into America's energy-patch, creating millions of jobs, billions in incomes and trillions of dollars in wealth and prosperity; not to mention enhance our national security and project strength. In contrast, Obama reduces America's expectations, projects weakness and has chosen the path to welfare, dependency, povery, socialism, Tobacco Road and The Grapes of Wrath.
January 27, 2009
11:40 AM
Shaggy writes:
JW,
When Barry says he is going to grow Government by 600,000 people, who is going to pay their salaries and by what means will they receive that money?
By raising taxes you moron!
It is smoke and mirrors when Barry says he is going to cut taxes.
He is going to cut taxes before he raises them two fold idiot.
Start thinking outside your socialist box for a change.
January 27, 2009
12:00 PM
JW writes:
"When Barry says he is going to grow Government by 600,000 people, who is going to pay their salaries and by what means will they receive that money?"
Hes following the REPUBLICAN policy on that: BORROW.
"By raising taxes you moron!"
Nope. Tax cuts for now.
When the economy gets back on track no doubt he will go with a more conservative approach (taxing at a level sufficient to pay our bills, and pay down some of the debt you neocon idiots wracked up) but with how bad the Bush admin messed up this country, it could take his entire presidency before he can do that.
"It is smoke and mirrors when Barry says he is going to cut taxes."
LOL. It was smoke an mirrors when BUSH CUT YOUR TAXES AND SPENT LIKE MAD you flaming idiot. You just dont get it. Funny thing here is that Bush spent all that money on things that get little or no return, while Obama is going to spend on investing in our country, generating future returns. Youre worse than Hogar. Republicans could be raping your dog, wife, daughter, and her boyfriend and you would ask if they needed more lube. I mean look at you you partisan tool! When Bush cut your taxes and went on a spending spree it was good for the economy. Obama does EXACTLY THE SAME THING and you lose what tiny mind you have! IDIOT doesnt cover it.
"He is going to cut taxes before he raises them two fold idiot."
Fuckwit, we gota pay down the debt YOU AND YOUR ILK GAVE US somehow. How can you not understand this you fucking jackass? YOU voted in guys that gave you a tax cut AND started spending like mad. Who did you think was going to pay for it? China? Are you really so fucking slack jawed stupid you cannot understand this? My advice, cut up all your credit cards because you are just too damn stupid to own one.
"Start thinking outside your socialist box for a change."
Take a poli sci class. Not everything is "Socialism" you ignorant slob.
January 27, 2009
12:05 PM
history buff writes:
Squat
Bush the oil man had a Republican congress for six years and none of the miracle cures you suggest happened. Was he counting on the USA taking over Iraq's oil that delayed this effort? Was the conflict between Sunni and Shia unforeseen?
Supposedly, California might consider supporting off shore drilling but they want to feel assured that modern technology will prevent the disasters that killed off shore drilling in the past -- namely, the oil spill that wiped out the Santa Barbara beach economy for a time.
I still think the way to long term wealth and to secure another American century is to go beyond oil. Conservation and new technologies are the key.
January 27, 2009
12:50 PM
KW writes:
Is it just me or do peoples opinions on tax cuts seem to be morphing into a greater acceptance that tax cuts are the best way to help the economy?
1) Obama is not willing to repeal any of Bush's tax cuts (in spite of Pelosi's demand) because he doesn't feel right about "raising peoples taxes during hard economic times." He said he feels the hardest hit by any repeal of those cuts would be the middle class.
Although Obama is currently poised to let the Bush tax cuts expire (including those for the middle class), he also has plans to include many eerily similar middle class and business tax cuts in his "own" economic plans.
2) Roughly 40% of Obama's current stimulus package is tax cuts for both businesses and the middle class.
Yet here I have yet to see any of the same people who railed Bush for daring to cut taxes in a time of war complaining one iota about Obama's tax cuts?
Are tax cuts during a war OK now... as opposed to last week?
Or last month?
January 27, 2009
1:10 PM
JW writes:
"Yet here I have yet to see any of the same people who railed Bush for daring to cut taxes in a time of war complaining one iota about Obama's tax cuts?
Are tax cuts during a war OK now... as opposed to last week?
Or last month?"
Really KW? Really? You really need this explained?
Think, for a moment, if anything is different about Bush tax cuts beginning the war, and Obama tax cuts now.
Come up with anything? Need a hint?
STATE OF THE ECONOMY.
That starting to make a bit of sense? Shall I explain to you why I might, as a fiscal conservative, have been mad at Bush for cutting taxes during war and why I might be ok with Obama doing it now? Shall I explain how the state of our economy changes what tax policy should be with regards to deficit spending?
Think maybe, just maybe, in this situation the RELEVANT ECONOMIC FACTORS are more important than PARTY (actually thats always the case)?
Just incase you arent getting this:
If our economy was booming right now, as it was when Bush was cutting taxes AND deficit spending, I would be just as angry with Obama if he were doing it.
And this situation is EXACTLY why I was pissed at Bush for doing it! I think "I told you so!" is a bit in order, as my main complaint about Bush's tax policy was ALWAYS that he was deficit spending in an economic boom, which puts us in a bad situation with tons of debt when the economy INEVITABLY slows, and we actually NEED to deficit spend.
And think for a moment; If we didnt have $10 trillion in debt coming into this slow down, would throwing $3 trillion at the banks to deal with their toxic debt be a big deal? No. Would giving huge tax breaks to business and individuals to help stimulate the economy be a big deal if we werent already eyeballs deep in BUSH'S DEBT? No.
But when you already have $10 trillion in debt, these tax cuts and spending that help stimulate the economy are a BIG DEAL.
This is the central stupidity of Republican partisans: That they believe you can have your tax cuts and spending too! And this, what we are seeing now, is the problem. We go into fiscal slowdowns already loaded up with debt.
January 27, 2009
2:41 PM
KW writes:
"If our economy was booming right now, as it was when Bush was cutting taxes AND deficit spending, I would be just as angry with Obama if he were doing it. --jw
JW - That explanation could be plausible if it were remembering history correctly.
But the facts are this, between 2001 and 2003 Bush signed two tax cuts: the Economic Growth and Tax Reduction Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Reduction and Reconciliation Act of 2003.
During that time the unemployment rate was rising and didn't peak until June 2003 (at 6.3 percent). We also were in a recession from the time Bush took office until Nov of 2001. After the first tax cut was enacted, unemployment began dropping and held steady at around 5.5 percent. This is lower than the average unemployment rates for the 70s, 80s, AND the 90s.
Also, growth of the GDP accelerated sharply in late 2003 after the 2nd tax cut was enacted and since then has remained above average.
You see, Bush wasn't cutting taxes "while the economy was booming."
You can argue the economy "may" have rebounded on it's own without the tax cuts, but that would be an even bigger stretch than your statement I quoted above.
January 27, 2009
3:08 PM
JW writes:
LOL.
So, in order to refute my statements about why deficit spending in a time of plenty is bad, you site the TWO OUT OF EIGHT YEARS that were semi bad during Bush's term? And go on to just IGNORE the other 6?
Youre a waste of my time.
January 27, 2009
3:25 PM
KW writes:
No JW, I clearly refuted your statement that Bush was cutting taxes during a "booming economy." The economy was in a recession in 2001, not "semi bad" as you put it again.
And I NEVER brought up spending, you threw that one in as your escape. For just in case you were caught trying to rewrite history in order to justify your hypocrisy for railing Bush's tax cuts and practically having an orgasm over Obama's.
You got busted!
That my friend is YOUR waste of time.
PS I never mentioned you in my original post. Why did you take such offense to it? Did I strike a nerve?
January 27, 2009
3:37 PM
JW writes:
"No JW, I clearly refuted your statement that Bush was cutting taxes during a "booming economy." The economy was in a recession in 2001, not "semi bad" as you put it again."
Yes, my language was incorrect. You are right. I should have said "Kept his tax cuts in place during the boom which spending at a deficit". You "GOTCHA" me.
"And I NEVER brought up spending, you threw that one in as your escape."
Spending and taxes are two parts of the issue. One is totally inconcequential without the other.
"For just in case you were caught trying to rewrite history in order to justify your hypocrisy for railing Bush's tax cuts and practically having an orgasm over Obama's."
This is why youre a waste of my time. While the way I put it was wrong (Bush didnt infact cut taxes during the boom) he cut taxes, and kept those tax cuts in place during the boom, while spending on defict.
Now, you can go and think your great for catching that little phrasing issue. Congrats.
The CENTRAL IDEA behind my post was that I had a problem with Bush's tax cuts DURING THAT ECONMIC BOOM, BECAUSE HE WAS STILL SPENDING AT A DEFICIT, DRIVING UP DEBT.
It was pretty clear, but as usual with you ideologs, you just ignore the CENTRAL point in order to go off on some INCONSEQUENTIAL ISSUE and play "gotcha".
I didnt have a problem with Bush's tax cuts in 01. I had a problem with them in 04, 05, 06, 07 and some of 08.
fuckwit.
BTW,
"You can argue the economy "may" have rebounded on it's own without the tax cuts, but that would be an even bigger stretch than your statement I quoted above."
This was EXACTLY what Greenspan said about it. Hes smarter than me, which makes him WAY smarter than you.
January 27, 2009
4:38 PM
Shaggy writes:
KW,
I commend for bitch slapping JW around.
I always wondered what the fraud Churchill was up to these days, looks as though he is now fraudulently teaching a MBA class and we are seeing the results through JW.
January 27, 2009
5:06 PM
JMH writes:
LOL... Shaggy, KW wasn't slapping anyone around... but if it makes you feel better about being the bitch on this blog...
January 28, 2009
8:08 AM
Shaggy writes:
WTF are you talking about now JW.
WTF does Enron have to do with Barry's Socialistic ideals?
Now that you have had your ass handed to you over and over you are just rambling about nothing dimwit.
I am beginning to worry about you.
btw, did you ask your instructor to tell you why cutting capital gains and having a tax holiday would jump start the economy instead of printing more debt that will have to paid for by raising taxes?
Why don't you do that and then get back to me so you can tell me that I was right...as usual!
January 28, 2009
10:30 AM
JW writes:
"WTF are you talking about now JW.
WTF does Enron have to do with Barry's Socialistic ideals?
Now that you have had your ass handed to you over and over you are just rambling about nothing dimwit.
I am beginning to worry about you."
Its called a metaphore Shaggy, but apparently the censors dont like them.
"btw, did you ask your instructor to tell you why cutting capital gains and having a tax holiday would jump start the economy instead of printing more debt that will have to paid for by raising taxes?"
Tax holiday (business, income) is a possible good idea Shaggy, but the only reason you think a Capital Gains holiday is good is your ideology based ignorance. When the market is 34% in the hole, no one is concerned about capital gains taxes.
"Why don't you do that and then get back to me so you can tell me that I was right...as usual!"
That was what the metaphore was about Shaggy. You thinking you are right is the same as someone who still believs Enron was the best company EVER. Enron failed. The policies you scream about daily...failed. It couldnt be more obvious.
January 29, 2009
5:19 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Government is more about giving your friends advantage than ruling ju writes:
The bottom line is that government becomes this ever growing monster like the one in Little Shop of Horrors that says "Feed ME." We need government for Police, Fire as well as infrastructure like roads, bridges and mass transportation. We do not need the social engineering and schools and other such things that the private sector does a much better job with.
January 29, 2009
5:49 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Our government should be English only writes:
The bottom line is that government becomes this ever growing monster like the one in Little Shop of Horrors that says "Feed ME." We need government for Police, Fire as well as infrastructure like roads, bridges and mass transportation. We do not need the social engineering and schools and other such things that the private sector does a much better job with.
January 29, 2009
7:10 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) The Federal government causes more problems than it solves writes:
The bottom line is that government becomes this ever growing monster like the one in Little Shop of Horrors that says "Feed ME." We need government for Police, Fire as well as infrastructure like roads, bridges and mass transportation. We do not need the social engineering and schools and other such things that the private sector does a much better job with.
January 30, 2009
6:59 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) The Federal government causes more problems than it solves writes:
The bottom line is that government becomes this ever growing monster like the one in Little Shop of Horrors that says "Feed ME." We need government for Police, Fire as well as infrastructure like roads, bridges and mass transportation. We do not need the social engineering and schools and other such things that the private sector does a much better job with.