By: Consider on 4/15/10
When the Recovery Act was signed unemployment was under 8% - and it was largely pegged as a job-creation bill. One year later unemployment is nearly 10%, and was over 10% for a while. This bill made us worse off as a country, and also added nearly $800 billion to our debt. If Tim Walz is going to hold this program up as a success, then he does not deserve your vote.

By: atlascollapsed on 4/15/10
Rep. Walz comments invite some quetions as well. If reducing taxes is such an important part of revitalizing the economy why are the programs he touts so specificly targeted? Wouldn't a broader tax reduction stimulate even more of the economy?

And again if reducing taxes works so well why has he voted for all the tax increases that he has? What tax increases you ask? A more than doubling of the federal tax on tobbacco, Taxes on individuals and businesses who dont have/offer govt approved healthcare, Taxes on tanning, additional taxes on interest, dividends and capital gains, Taxes on medical devices, Taxes on pharmaceuticals, Taxes on approved medical insurance plans, Raising the threshold for deductions of medical care costs, Letting tax cuts expire. Believe me I could go on. I'm just thankful the cap and trade legislation he voted for hasn't been signed into law. If it ever does this list will be far longer.

So feel free to tout all the tax lowering youve done Rep. Walz, but on a grander scale your votes for increased taxes effect far more people than the paltry tax cuts that you've supported.

By: Consider on 4/15/10
Very good points AC!

The tax increases we've seen, and those you mention above that are yet to begin, are far greater than the temporary cuts that Rep. Walz is touting. In classic liberal fashion he is voting to raise taxes on people and activities that he does not support, and lowering taxes on those things that he favors.

The real issue that he refuses to deal with is total government spending. Our current tax rate is meaningless if we keep running bigger and bigger deficits. Ultimately we will have to pay - unless we can vote him and many others out of office AND elect those who are willing to actually cut spending.

By: Thuljunior on 4/16/10
"Family tax credits: If you’re a moderate-income family, the Recovery Act increased your tax credits. The Earned Income Tax Credit is now $5,657, and it’s now easier to claim the Child Tax Credit."

That is an interesting definition of 'moderate income family'. According to the IRS, if you and your spouse make over $18,440, you don't qualify for the EITC. So by Rep Walz's own words, a married couple living on less than 18K a year is moderate income.

By: TheMole on 4/17/10
i am not sure where the tax breaks are, taxes are so high we work the first 6 months just to pay our taxes, and, they want more.

By: secretsquirrel on 4/19/10
Hell mole, I work the first six months to pay last years taxes and the next six months to pay half of this year's taxes. LOL

By: civiltongued on 4/20/10
How much would it cost for you to hire your own police, fire, snow removers, road maintenance people, school teachers, bridge builders, or pay all of your health bills because Social Security is gone? Probably a lot more than you pay right now. We must live in a limited socialist country or it would be the 1700's again.

By: secretsquirrel on 4/20/10
1. Police? About $800 for a decent Springfield stainless 1911A1 and another fifty for ammo (One time investment).
2. Fire? About $100 to extend the hose on my beer keg (One time investment).
3. Snow removal? $400 for a decent snowblower and another $400 for some used 33" mudders.
4. Road maintenance? See #3. Who needs roads?
5. School teachers? Which district?
6. Bridge builders? See #3.
7. Home medication. Free.
Hey, the 1700's weren't so bad. At least people had jobs. Even Oliver Twist found an occupation...

By: RealityCheck on 4/20/10
Um, it only takes me 2 months to earn my taxes, so maybe you guys flunked math?

Republicans had 8 years to fix this country and do it their way. Instead, they wrecked it and blame everybody else.

BTW the way, picky bloggers, the BUSH tax cuts, were exceptionally specific, aimed at helping the richest 5% of our citizenry. The first step in tax fairness is to let those expire, and then to jack them back to where they were before 1980. None of the rich were hurting then, they just threw a tantrum and bought themselves a Ronnie Raygun puppet regime and cut their income taxes from 80-90% all the way down to 34.9 in some cases. Gee fellas...how'd we get this big deficit? Hmmm. It all starts there, in 1980. Do your homework, and you'll find the truth. AND when these folks were paying their fair share, we didn't need a tax on everything else.

And when I say fair, if you are earning a billion dollars a year, I think you can survive on 10% of that just fine. If not, you could instead throw it my way and I will do just fine. For those of you not good with decimal points, that's still 100 million dollars to live off of, per year. I think too, that there would be plenty left over to invest in new businesses with, which by the time you are that rich doesn't come from your personal accounts anyway. You talk the voters into paying it for you, whether its oil rigs, or ball parks. Think of it as a friendly sort of extortion.

Ronnie Raygun also quadrupled the ways in which huge companies can not only completely dodge 100% of their taxes, but even get millions of dollars in a REBATE that they didn't even need or deserve. That's what a Republican government gets you, and to date, they have yet to do anything that improves stagnant wages for working Americans. Instead we are given token tax breaks, that in turn financially bankrupt our public schools, police, social services, city and county services. They instead give us ridiculous lines of credit, and bogus mortgage deals, all in the name of deregulation,and soak you for even more of your smaller and smaller paycheck.

Of course, taking money from schools and deregulating businesses assures profiteers a dim witted public who will buy all the fast food and tobacco that's thrown at them, and hey why not throw in a big screen t.v.? Put it on the credit card. Better yet use your stimulus check. Don't save it. What good would that do? No job? No worry. Republicans will take care of you.....er....wait....no, they won't. They'll tell you to follow your job to China.

Republicans had 8 years to fix this country. Instead, they wrecked it.

By: Consider on 4/21/10
RealityCheck - Just how many people do you think there are that earn $1 billion? Even if it did not have other harmful effects on the economy, a 90% tax on "the rich" will not raise enough money to pay for all of our current spending. There are simply not enough evil rich people to tax.

We do not have a deficit because taxes are too low. We have a deficit because spending is too high. Take a look some time at the history of the following numbers: population, government revenue (taxes), government spending. It is the spending that is off the charts. Revenue went up - even while "Raygun" was cutting tax rates.

By: ss_observing on 4/21/10
What makes a 80-90% tax fair on anybody? That's beyond ludicrous! How much someone is able to earn should be completely irrelavent when it comes to taxes and you certainly shouldn't expect to have the majority of it taken away once you do earn it. Now, taxing someone who SPENDS a billion dollars that's a different story. It's also more of a choice versus a penalty for success.

Cut the stupidity when it comes to spending. Get a refund on all of the bail out funds, get the deadbeats off the dole, and take back your Obamacare, then we'll discuss a "revenue" problem.

By: TheMole on 4/22/10
the problem is that "some" of the rich know how to hide or write off items that reduce their taxable income. Some of the write offs and loopholes they use "may" be on the edge of legality or totally illegal-they just don't get caught.

By: Consider on 4/22/10
Mole -
No doubt there are many who truly cheat on their taxes. When discovered, they should pay significant penalties - and not be appointed as our Treasury Secretary.

A simpler tax code would help a great deal. The loopholes and writeoffs are made possible only because Congress keeps adding them. Unlike what RC stated, Reagan actually simplified the tax code and eliminated many of these - they just keep being added back in.

A simpler tax code would mean less time for everyone to prepare their returns and less time for the IRS to process. That would free up more time, if needed, for enforcement.

By: ss_observing on 4/22/10
Then solve the problem. You don't punish everyone because a few are breaking already existing laws. That literally is a major part of our society's problem, from dealing with errant children, to formulating company handbooks, to our newest and greatest laws, some"one" broke an already existing rule/law, so let's come up with a new rule/law that punishes everyone. God forbid if we'd just deal with the actual problem.

By: sully on 4/23/10
Seriously we need to drop the whole rep. dem. argument crap. This does us no good.

If you could raise my taxes and use it to pay for the debt while restructuring medicare and social security and not spend it on new social programs I am all for it.

I think at this point we need to come up with a plan to raise taxes on most citizens and also reduce wasteful spending to pay down a debt that we will be unable to service in the future.

The bush tax cuts were a bad idea. They added fuel to the fire of a goverment that continues to backstop bank losses and allow them to print money. Our ability to forget about the past is very powerful. We will encourage the banks to create money going forward and take our 12 trillion + debt from a mortgage payment to a credit card payment.

By: Consider on 4/23/10
NO sully. NO more taxes until our government makes all of the changes you suggest. The Federal government has shown that it is not capable of dealing with social security, medicare, and all of the other social programs. By supporting higher taxes you will simply get screwed again. Maybe cuts in spending will be made - but they are not as likely to last as long as the higher taxes.

By: igor74 on 4/24/10
It doesn't matter which party is in power anymore. Both have a vested interest in keeping government large, bloated, and depended upon.

It gives them control over the masses, one way or another. It's now simply a matter of which faction the parties bow to. Big business or the social engineers.

By: RealityCheck on 4/25/10
Sully is correct.

Consider, you and some others here need to read this book: Free Lunch by David Cay Johnston, and then tell me all about your ideas about the economy, taxes, and the government.

By: secretsquirrel on 4/26/10
Would love to read the book but I still do not think that raising taxes is where to start. Consider is right (my opinion) as it is the most reasonable and pragmatic start (emphasis on "start") to resolving this and many other fiscal issues in this country.
If my kid wasn't being responsible with his money, I sure wouldn't make it mine or his employer's responsibility to provide more money while he tries to sort out his bills and spending habits. That makes no sense.
As for taxes, I really believe that eliminating the loop holes and coming up with a flat tax of one sort or other is the best and fairest way to go. It could be applied to businesses as well as individual income.
If people make a pile of cash each year, it's because they found a way to earn it. At what point does their property become mine? it doesn't. If we were not talking about money but rather discussing houses, if I follow that rationale then I should be able to move into my neighbor's house because it's much nicer than mine. Or cars.... boats... what's next? Spouses? Same sort of thinking.
Socially? Yes, I do believe that those more fortunate have a social obligation to pay it forward. Most do. But there's a difference between a social obligation and a legally binding edict.