War on The Rich: Dumbest Idea in History of Man

[BluesLegend]

Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

No it doesn't I don't think you understand what SS is its not some damn welfare program to put the screws to the rich . You are purchasing a retirement benefit that varies depending on how much you pay into the system. Everyone who pays on average $2,000 a year into SS will receive the exact same benefit when they retire. The more you pay in the more you get back up to the maximum benefit. In other words you get what you pay for so the poor have nothing to gripe about.

I pay the maximum into SS every year so I will receive the maximum benefit when I retire. There's no reason for me to pay more into SS I'm already buying the maximum benefit.

It puts the screws to the people who have been duped to thinking that it is helping them.

And you say you put the maximum in as if you have a choice how much is taken from you. You don't it's a set percentage. You'd be far better off putting that money into a balanced portfolio than you are letting the government hold it for you

You are preaching to the choir, I'd opt out in a second. Congress already spent every last dime I contributed to SS, its hard to imagine any investment performing worse than that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It puts the screws to the people who have been duped to thinking that it is helping them.

And you say you put the maximum in as if you have a choice how much is taken from you. You don't it's a set percentage. You'd be far better off putting that money into a balanced portfolio than you are letting the government hold it for you

(Excerpt)

Chances are, 2008's market meltdown did a number on your retirement portfolio. Misery had plenty of company. The year's 401(k) and IRA account summaries have been rolling in, and they don't look pretty: In 2008, employees, on average, lost 14 percent—or about $10,000—of their retirement savings, according to Hewitt Associates. Some lost much more. Fidelity, the nation's largest retirement-plan administrator, says the average balance in its customers' accounts dropped $19,000 in 2008. But averages don't tell the whole story. How your retirement account navigated the year's tumultuous market depends on several factors: your portfolio's stock versus bond breakdown, your allocation to other asset classes, the performance of your individual funds, and your account balance. So how did your 401(k) fare compared with investors in the same boat? Here's a look:

How Did Your 401 k Really Stack Up in 2008 - US News

(Close)

Investors were lucky in 2008. The majority were only hurt -- not totally ruined. But don't make the very common mistake of believing it can't happen. We barely squeaked by this time but the Nation is $17.5 trillion in debt now, so there is nothing left to be "bailing out" any more criminal bankers.

You are quite right about investing being capable of producing a better return than Social Security payments. But so are the crap tables in Las Vegas.

The smart way to go is Social Security with some investments on the side. And if you earn too little to do that you have no business playing around in the Market.

It's not rocket science that the closer you get to retirement then less risk you take. If you are within 5 years of retirement and you have the majority of your money in equities then you are an idiot

 

[RKMBrown]

So then, no ability to discern examples of Marxism in what was posted, and this is just a generic ignorant response.

I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?

The democrats are all marxists.

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

That's why i'm libertarian.

Fantasy

Retard.

 

[RKMBrown]

How is readjusting the tax code so that it no longer favors the rich, a "war on the rich"?

A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.

Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

That's just plain stupid. Lower income people get more out of SS than they put in.. this as opposed to upper income folks who get less out of SS than they put in.

 

[RKMBrown]

The democrats are all marxists.

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

That's why i'm libertarian.

Libertarians are anarchists

Name one libertarian party plank eschewing anarchy.

All of them

Dumb ass equates all forms of liberty with anarchy.

 

[zeke]

A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.

Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

That's just plain stupid. Lower income people get more out of SS than they put in.. this as opposed to upper income folks who get less out of SS than they put in.

Really? When did the government start means testing Social Security?

Doesn't it matter how long you live after you start drawing SSI as to how much you take out vs. how much you put in? Sure it does. Try again.

 

[RKMBrown]

Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

That's just plain stupid. Lower income people get more out of SS than they put in.. this as opposed to upper income folks who get less out of SS than they put in.

Really? When did the government start means testing Social Security?

Doesn't it matter how long you live after you start drawing SSI as to how much you take out vs. how much you put in? Sure it does. Try again.

Are you retarded? Where did I say government started means testing SS?

Upper middle income folks by average put in more than they will get out. Lower income folks by average get much more back than they put in. These are facts.

For example, I maxed out my SS deposits before I turned 36. Every dollar I put in after 36 is "extra." Yet I get to keep paying and paying and paying... receiving nothing extra in return. Why? Because the SS payouts are capped to middle income, not upper middle income. Upper middle income folks get royally screwed by SS.

 

[zeke]

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

That's just plain stupid. Lower income people get more out of SS than they put in.. this as opposed to upper income folks who get less out of SS than they put in.

Really? When did the government start means testing Social Security?

Doesn't it matter how long you live after you start drawing SSI as to how much you take out vs. how much you put in? Sure it does. Try again.

Are you retarded? Where did I say government started means testing SS?

Upper middle income folks by average put in more than they will get out. Lower income folks by average get much more back than they put in. These are facts.

Well why don't you post a link to those supposed "facts"? Cause I went looking on Google and didn't find that info. Or are you just making shit up again? Yep. Making shit up again. That's pretty standard for you.

But you stupid fuck, if you live long enough, everybody drawing SSI will get more back than they paid in. IF YOU LIVE LONG ENOUGH. Which group you think has better life longevity? Poor or rich? Of course you will say poor people live longer.

And what is up with you and poor people. You think poor people get a "special" poor person SSI bonus? You dumb fuck. Does the percentage of withholding change as the income amount changes? Nope. Does the higher income person receive a bigger SSI check than the low income person. Yep.

Maybe you are confusing SSI and the Earned Income tax credit that really does benefit poor people by increasing the amount of their tax refund.

Yea, it's Sunday, I'll give your stupid ass the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Boss]

"SSI" is NOT Social Security, it is only administered by the SSA. You're confusing it with FICA. Only about 8 million are eligible for SSI benefits.

You lefties have SO many hand-out programs going you can't keep them straight. Every time we pass a new one, you all run out there and find one or two people who are "falling through the cracks" that we have to help. You tell us there are a gazillion such people and they are dying in the streets because mean rich republicans just won't help, so we set up massive government agencies to dole out more money we don't have, and the beat goes on.

 

[zeke]

Social Security income is not really social security income though it is funded by the FICA tax. WTF?

Drink some more coffee. You might be talking out your ass about SSDI. Social Security Disability Income.

 

[Boss]

Social Security income is not really social security income though it is funded by the FICA tax. WTF?

Drink some more coffee. You might be talking out your ass about SSDI. Social Security Disability Income.

"SSI" is Supplemental Security Income.

FICA is your Social Security and Medicare.

 

[Boss]

And what is up with you and poor people. You think poor people get a "special" poor person SSI bonus? You dumb fuck. Does the percentage of withholding change as the income amount changes? Nope. Does the higher income person receive a bigger SSI check than the low income person. Yep.

SSI is a program specifically FOR poor people and disabled people. So yes... poor people get a "special" poor people SSI bonus. Percentage of withholding on both FICA and SSI are based on amount of pay but your SS retirement benefit is a set amount each month. Higher income people simply DO NOT get bigger SS checks.

 

[Dad2three]

It puts the screws to the people who have been duped to thinking that it is helping them.

And you say you put the maximum in as if you have a choice how much is taken from you. You don't it's a set percentage. You'd be far better off putting that money into a balanced portfolio than you are letting the government hold it for you

(Excerpt)

Chances are, 2008's market meltdown did a number on your retirement portfolio. Misery had plenty of company. The year's 401(k) and IRA account summaries have been rolling in, and they don't look pretty: In 2008, employees, on average, lost 14 percent—or about $10,000—of their retirement savings, according to Hewitt Associates. Some lost much more. Fidelity, the nation's largest retirement-plan administrator, says the average balance in its customers' accounts dropped $19,000 in 2008. But averages don't tell the whole story. How your retirement account navigated the year's tumultuous market depends on several factors: your portfolio's stock versus bond breakdown, your allocation to other asset classes, the performance of your individual funds, and your account balance. So how did your 401(k) fare compared with investors in the same boat? Here's a look:

How Did Your 401 k Really Stack Up in 2008 - US News

(Close)

Investors were lucky in 2008. The majority were only hurt -- not totally ruined. But don't make the very common mistake of believing it can't happen. We barely squeaked by this time but the Nation is $17.5 billion in debt now, so there is nothing left to be "bailing out" any more criminal bankers.

You are quite right about investing being capable of producing a better return than Social Security payments. But so are the crap tables in Las Vegas.

The smart way to go is Social Security with some investments on the side. And if you earn too little to do that you have no business playing around in the Market.

Gah.... You know what this is? This is proof public education doesn't teach jack squat.

Look.....

First off, the national debt, and the stock market, are not related in any way. Citing the other, in reference to the first, is ridiculous.

The ONE AND ONLY REASON we are $17.5 Trillion (not Billion), in debt is because the public elected a moron that spent more money in his first 4 years WITHOUT a war, than Bush did in his 8 years, with TWO wars.

That's all there is to that.

Second, the reason people lose money in the stock market, is only because they are ruined by the awful education system we have. You can't be wiped out, unless you allow yourself to be wiped out.

There is only two ways to get wiped out.

1. Buy single stocks in a single company.
2. By selling when the price goes down.

Buying single stocks, is highly risky, and rather dumb. In times gone past, people had these phrases "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" and similar. The point was, you don't know what is going to succeed and what is going to fail.
Even the Bible says:
"Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth" (Ecclesiates 11:2).

Plain and simple, it means Diversify. The people who get wiped out, are the morons who put all their money in one investment. Like the Enron people, who put their entire retirement fund in Enron stock.... yeah, you can scream about the CEO, but that stupidity was on them. You never put all your money in one single stock, because if the stock crashes, your screwed.

Solution? Buy a mutual fund. Mutual funds, have teams of analysts who spend all day check and rechecked, investigating, researching, to determine what stocks they wish to buy, and which to sell. And they don't invest in one company, or two companies, but a hundred companies.

My mutual fund has stock in Exxon, Walmart, Apple, and dozens of other large companies. My Euro Pacific has stock in dozens of international companies.

Second, selling when the price goes down. People make the mistake of thinking that they 'lost something' when the market crashes.

Fail. You lose nothing when the market crashes. Nothing at all.

Say I have 100 shares of XoCorp stock, which is valued at $1,000, ($10 a share). Now say the market crashes, and the value is cut in half. So now it's $5 a share, for a total value of $500. "I lost $500!".... no I didn't. I still have 100 shares. I've lost nothing.

In fact... when the shares go down in price, that's when you buy. If Ford cuts the price of a Mustang Convertable in half, you don't run out and sell your car. You run out and buy a Mustang. It's on sale. Now is the time to buy!

When the market crashes, it's like stocks are on sale. It's time to buy more shares, not sell them off.

Worse yet, when the market crashes, that's when you make the most money on your investment.

Companies hand out Dividends. If XoCorp is giving out 50¢ a share, and I have 100 shares, that's $50. When your retirement fund gets that Dividend, they use that money to buy more stock. They buy 5 more shares with the $50, and now I have 105 shares. That's how 401Ks and IRAs grow in value. You use the dividends to buy more shares, thus growing your investment value.

Well if the price of shares drops in half, and I get the $50 in dividend, how many shares can I buy now? At $5 a share, I can buy 10 shares, instead of 5 before. Now I have 110 shares.

A mutual fund will grow faster during a market crash, than before.

Then when the market rebounds back to full price, because I have more shares, I'll have a higher value.

The only way I get screwed, is if I sell off my shares when the value crashes. The people that held their money in the stock market during the crash in 2007, all the way through, made all their money back plus a ton more. I certainly did. My portfolio is more than double what it was in 2007. Easy.

"The ONE AND ONLY REASON we are $17.5 Trillion (not Billion), in debt is because the public elected a moron that spent more money in his first 4 years WITHOUT a war, than Bush did in his 8 years, with TWO wars.

That's all there is to that."


Honesty, try it

How the Deficit Got This Big
In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies.

Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html



The Fiscal Legacy of George W. Bush

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

Republicans assert that Barack Obama assumed sole responsibility for the budget on Jan. 20, 2009. From that date, all increases in the debt or deficit are his responsibility and no one else’s, they say

This is, of course, nonsense – and the American people know it. As I documented in a previous post, even today 43 percent of them hold George W. Bush responsible for the current budget deficit versus only 14 percent who blame Mr. Obama.


The American people are right; Mr. Bush is more responsible, as a new report from the Congressional Budget Office documents.



...During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush warned that budget surpluses were dangerous because Congress might spend them, even though Paygo rules prevented this from happening. His Feb. 28, 2001, budget message reiterated this point and asserted that future surpluses were likely to be even larger than projected due principally to anticipated strong revenue growth.



This was the primary justification for a big tax cut.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-of-george-w-bush/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

 

[Dad2three]

I see, well then perhaps with your discerning perception you can tell me where these Marxist are he keeps droning on about. Who are they? Are they hiding? Why don't they show themselves and openly declare their Marxist sympathies?

The democrats are all marxists.

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

That's why i'm libertarian.

Fantasy

Retard.

Yes, most cons are

 

[Dad2three]

A flat tax doesn't favor anyone.

Weird, MOST economists say that it's regressive? Hmm

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

That's just plain stupid. Lower income people get more out of SS than they put in.. this as opposed to upper income folks who get less out of SS than they put in.

Wow a con who actually know's a litle bit about TRUTH

 

[Dad2three]

And Republicans are all fascists

Easy isn't it?

That's why i'm libertarian.

Libertarians are anarchists

Name one libertarian party plank eschewing anarchy.

All of them

Dumb ass equates all forms of liberty with anarchy.

I gave you the links to the libertarian platforms that called for anarchy? No answer? lol

 

[Contumacious]

That's why i'm libertarian.

Libertarians are anarchists

Name one libertarian party plank eschewing anarchy.

All of them

Dumb ass equates all forms of liberty with anarchy.

I gave you the links to the libertarian platforms that called for anarchy? No answer? lol

Did you also provide the links to the demopublican platforms that called for communism?


Why is trying to abolish slavery and tyranny "anarchy"?

.

 

[Dad2three]

The SS tax is regressive the flat tax treats everyone the same.

Oh it's opposite world today???

The SS tax hits lower income people harder than higher income people THAT is the very definition of a regressive tax.

That's just plain stupid. Lower income people get more out of SS than they put in.. this as opposed to upper income folks who get less out of SS than they put in.

Really? When did the government start means testing Social Security?

Doesn't it matter how long you live after you start drawing SSI as to how much you take out vs. how much you put in? Sure it does. Try again.

Are you retarded? Where did I say government started means testing SS?

Upper middle income folks by average put in more than they will get out. Lower income folks by average get much more back than they put in. These are facts.

For example, I maxed out my SS deposits before I turned 36. Every dollar I put in after 36 is "extra." Yet I get to keep paying and paying and paying... receiving nothing extra in return. Why? Because the SS payouts are capped to middle income, not upper middle income. Upper middle income folks get royally screwed by SS.

Social Security Does Not Redistribute Income

"Social Security does not redistribute from people who are rich over their lifetime to those who are poor. In fact, it may even be slightly regressive."

Many people think that Social Security is a progressive program which redistributes income from the rich to the poor. But according to new research by Julia Lynn Coronado, Don Fullerton, and Thomas Glass, Social Security does not redistribute from people who are rich over their lifetime to those who are poor. In fact, it may even be slightly regressive.

Social Security Does Not Redistribute Income

 

[Dad2three]

"SSI" is NOT Social Security, it is only administered by the SSA. You're confusing it with FICA. Only about 8 million are eligible for SSI benefits.

You lefties have SO many hand-out programs going you can't keep them straight. Every time we pass a new one, you all run out there and find one or two people who are "falling through the cracks" that we have to help. You tell us there are a gazillion such people and they are dying in the streets because mean rich republicans just won't help, so we set up massive government agencies to dole out more money we don't have, and the beat goes on.

And cons prefer we look like another 3rd world country progressive policies lifted US from!


"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[NYcarbineer]

It puts the screws to the people who have been duped to thinking that it is helping them.

And you say you put the maximum in as if you have a choice how much is taken from you. You don't it's a set percentage. You'd be far better off putting that money into a balanced portfolio than you are letting the government hold it for you

(Excerpt)

Chances are, 2008's market meltdown did a number on your retirement portfolio. Misery had plenty of company. The year's 401(k) and IRA account summaries have been rolling in, and they don't look pretty: In 2008, employees, on average, lost 14 percent—or about $10,000—of their retirement savings, according to Hewitt Associates. Some lost much more. Fidelity, the nation's largest retirement-plan administrator, says the average balance in its customers' accounts dropped $19,000 in 2008. But averages don't tell the whole story. How your retirement account navigated the year's tumultuous market depends on several factors: your portfolio's stock versus bond breakdown, your allocation to other asset classes, the performance of your individual funds, and your account balance. So how did your 401(k) fare compared with investors in the same boat? Here's a look:

How Did Your 401 k Really Stack Up in 2008 - US News

(Close)

Investors were lucky in 2008. The majority were only hurt -- not totally ruined. But don't make the very common mistake of believing it can't happen. We barely squeaked by this time but the Nation is $17.5 billion in debt now, so there is nothing left to be "bailing out" any more criminal bankers.

You are quite right about investing being capable of producing a better return than Social Security payments. But so are the crap tables in Las Vegas.

The smart way to go is Social Security with some investments on the side. And if you earn too little to do that you have no business playing around in the Market.

Gah.... You know what this is? This is proof public education doesn't teach jack squat.

Look.....

First off, the national debt, and the stock market, are not related in any way. Citing the other, in reference to the first, is ridiculous.

The ONE AND ONLY REASON we are $17.5 Trillion (not Billion), in debt is because the public elected a moron that spent more money in his first 4 years WITHOUT a war, than Bush did in his 8 years, with TWO wars.

That's all there is to that.

Second, the reason people lose money in the stock market, is only because they are ruined by the awful education system we have. You can't be wiped out, unless you allow yourself to be wiped out.

There is only two ways to get wiped out.

1. Buy single stocks in a single company.
2. By selling when the price goes down.

Buying single stocks, is highly risky, and rather dumb. In times gone past, people had these phrases "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" and similar. The point was, you don't know what is going to succeed and what is going to fail.
Even the Bible says:
"Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on the earth" (Ecclesiates 11:2).

Plain and simple, it means Diversify. The people who get wiped out, are the morons who put all their money in one investment. Like the Enron people, who put their entire retirement fund in Enron stock.... yeah, you can scream about the CEO, but that stupidity was on them. You never put all your money in one single stock, because if the stock crashes, your screwed.

Solution? Buy a mutual fund. Mutual funds, have teams of analysts who spend all day check and rechecked, investigating, researching, to determine what stocks they wish to buy, and which to sell. And they don't invest in one company, or two companies, but a hundred companies.

My mutual fund has stock in Exxon, Walmart, Apple, and dozens of other large companies. My Euro Pacific has stock in dozens of international companies.

Second, selling when the price goes down. People make the mistake of thinking that they 'lost something' when the market crashes.

Fail. You lose nothing when the market crashes. Nothing at all.

Say I have 100 shares of XoCorp stock, which is valued at $1,000, ($10 a share). Now say the market crashes, and the value is cut in half. So now it's $5 a share, for a total value of $500. "I lost $500!".... no I didn't. I still have 100 shares. I've lost nothing.

In fact... when the shares go down in price, that's when you buy. If Ford cuts the price of a Mustang Convertable in half, you don't run out and sell your car. You run out and buy a Mustang. It's on sale. Now is the time to buy!

When the market crashes, it's like stocks are on sale. It's time to buy more shares, not sell them off.

Worse yet, when the market crashes, that's when you make the most money on your investment.

Companies hand out Dividends. If XoCorp is giving out 50¢ a share, and I have 100 shares, that's $50. When your retirement fund gets that Dividend, they use that money to buy more stock. They buy 5 more shares with the $50, and now I have 105 shares. That's how 401Ks and IRAs grow in value. You use the dividends to buy more shares, thus growing your investment value.

Well if the price of shares drops in half, and I get the $50 in dividend, how many shares can I buy now? At $5 a share, I can buy 10 shares, instead of 5 before. Now I have 110 shares.

A mutual fund will grow faster during a market crash, than before.

Then when the market rebounds back to full price, because I have more shares, I'll have a higher value.

The only way I get screwed, is if I sell off my shares when the value crashes. The people that held their money in the stock market during the crash in 2007, all the way through, made all their money back plus a ton more. I certainly did. My portfolio is more than double what it was in 2007. Easy.

"The ONE AND ONLY REASON we are $17.5 Trillion (not Billion), in debt is because the public elected a moron that spent more money in his first 4 years WITHOUT a war, than Bush did in his 8 years, with TWO wars.

That's all there is to that."


Honesty, try it

How the Deficit Got This Big
In 2001, President George W. Bush inherited a surplus, with projections by the Congressional Budget Office for ever-increasing surpluses, assuming continuation of the good economy and President Bill Clinton’s policies.

Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html



The Fiscal Legacy of George W. Bush

Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.

Republicans assert that Barack Obama assumed sole responsibility for the budget on Jan. 20, 2009. From that date, all increases in the debt or deficit are his responsibility and no one else’s, they say

This is, of course, nonsense – and the American people know it. As I documented in a previous post, even today 43 percent of them hold George W. Bush responsible for the current budget deficit versus only 14 percent who blame Mr. Obama.


The American people are right; Mr. Bush is more responsible, as a new report from the Congressional Budget Office documents.



...During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush warned that budget surpluses were dangerous because Congress might spend them, even though Paygo rules prevented this from happening. His Feb. 28, 2001, budget message reiterated this point and asserted that future surpluses were likely to be even larger than projected due principally to anticipated strong revenue growth.



This was the primary justification for a big tax cut.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-of-george-w-bush/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

CBO: Bush Tax Cuts Responsible For Almost A Third Of Deficit In Last 10 Years (2001-2010)

Bush also let PAYGO expire.

Bush believed, absurdly, that budget surpluses meant that Americans were being overtaxed.