|
Post by Rollin' Mark on Jun 6, 2004 9:50:44 GMT -5
I wrote: RM: Again, Huh? I'm solidly middle class and I got a check in the mail last year. How is this trickle down? The more you pay the more the rebate, its that simple. Correcting myself: It actually isn't that simple: www.fool.com/taxes/2003/taxes030530.htm
|
|
|
Post by threebeards on Jun 7, 2004 7:51:03 GMT -5
And lest we forget, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War and jailed anyone he perceived as a threat to the security of the north. The Supreme Court later ruled that action unconstitutional but it was way after the fact. He was also the guy who brought the federal government into its first real intervention into the daily lives of the average American with his reconstruction plan. Lincoln was killed before implementation but organizations like the Freedmen's Bureau dealt directly with citizens. prior to Reconstruction, there was virtually no day to day government involvement with the citizenry. Look at us now.
If anything, the current Republican party is too liberal. The redistribution of wealth is actively supported by both major parties and government growth continues almost unimpeded. Alexis de Toqueville noted that the American democratic experiment would succeed until the people learned how to get the government to give them money. That day of discovery is long past and the complexity of government involvement and control has grown exponentially; especially under Franklin Roosevelt and then with Lyndon Johnson's administration. The Republicans have not resisted the siren call of distributing alms to voters either but none have employed the largess that Roosevelt and Johnson did.
Some economists argue that we never recovered from the great depression, we just used government spending to keep us afloat. The growth of government since WWII is good evidence.
Thanks for listening.
TB
|
|
|
Post by Tipi on Jun 7, 2004 11:28:14 GMT -5
Mark writes ... Correcting myself: It actually isn't that simple: www.fool.com/taxes/2003/taxes030530.htm [/quote] Let me just say ... as long as the above possibility is allowed for ... (correcting myself=I was wrong) ... there remains hope in all perspectives. Just my hay-penny T
|
|
bb
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by bb on Jun 7, 2004 16:02:45 GMT -5
>>J: To make a fair tax cut you have to take into acount more than who pays the most taxes; for example, disposible income. Also, the timing of the tax cut is most important. You can't have tax cuts in times of HUGE deficits. <<
>>RM: Thats precisely when you SHOULD do it. The reason for the deficits was the poor economy. During the 80's and 90's we had unprecidented growth, and the deficit dryed up because of the huge revenue stream the Government had. As soon as we went into recession (March 2000) the deficits came back. The only real way to eliminate them is to stimulate the economy back to health.<<
I've got to call B.S. on this statement:
>>The reason for the deficits was the poor economy<<
The reason for any deficit is that you spent more than you brought in! It's that simple. During the Reagan years, the combination of tax cuts and increased military spending produced record deficits.
The "voodoo economics" term came from Bush Sr., before he joined the Reagan ticket. Reagan's supply-side experiment produced the largest deficits in history! Now, Bush jr. has topped that sorry episode with even greater deficits and debt burden - which is not expected to turn around anytime soon.
I saw a graph a year or so ago that plotted deficits and administrations. Funny how, in the last 30 years, every Republican administration produced lots of red ink while the only swings in the other direction came during Democratic administrations.
A quote from one of the earlier posts referred to the Republicans "lying" about who they are. Certainly, Republicans are no longer fiscally conservative, which I thought was at least half of being conservative in the first place.
What really torques me is that the "tax cuts" aren't. They're spending the money, just not taxing for it now. That is, doesn't it have to be paid for eventually - by tax dollars? And in the meantime, we pay interest on it?
So, tell me, how does that make the Republicans any better than those "tax-and-spend-liberals"? Notice they don't use that term anymore, now that they can't blame it all on a Democratically controlled Congress.
|
|
|
Post by Rollin' Mark on Jun 8, 2004 5:33:45 GMT -5
BB: I've got to call B.S. on this statement:
>>The reason for the deficits was the poor economy<<
The reason for any deficit is that you spent more than you brought in! It's that simple. RM Yes, you are exactly correct. I guess what I was trying to say was that the reason for the deficit was not that spending increased dramatically, but that the revenue generated decreased due to the recession.
BB: During the Reagan years, the combination of tax cuts and increased military spending produced record deficits. RM Yup, exactly right. As I posted before, this was by design due to 1. stimulate the economy. And 2. Beat the Soviets at the cold war. BB The "voodoo economics" term came from Bush Sr., before he joined the Reagan ticket. RM That is also correct. BB Reagan's supply-side experiment produced the largest deficits in history! RM Yup, see above.But it was temporary, by the mid-nineties we had a balanced budget due to the increase in revenue, not because any president cut spending. Also, no president After Reagan changed his "voodoo ecomomics" Bush Sr and CLinton left them alone (which is EXACTLY what they should have done). So you could argue that Bush and Clinton are also "supply siders" BB: Now, Bush jr. has topped that sorry episode with even greater deficits and debt burden RM: Yup, its all relative, the main reason for G.W.'s deficit is due to the recession, plain and simple. This would be the same recession that started in Bill Clinton's admin (and I don't necessarily blame him for it either) Now that we’ve come out of the recession, you will see the deficits drop. Also, please keep in mind 9/11. It had a LOT to do with the length of the recession and the Gov’t having to spend $$ that it didn’t have budgeted. BB: which is not expected to turn around anytime soon. RM: Huh? the recession is over, you should be happy about it. We have a mortgage. Look at it this way: 3 trillion in debt. GDP about 3 trillion. Thats equilivent to you and I having a mortgage equal to 1 years income. How many of us can brag about that? IE: We can afford the National Debt. I'm not saying that it is a GREAT thing that we have it, just that we can afford it.
BB: I saw a graph a year or so ago that plotted deficits and administrations. Funny how, in the last 30 years, every Republican administration produced lots of red ink while the only swings in the other direction came during Democratic administrations. RM: Yup, that is also correct. But you have to take the circumstances into account. Nixon: a total putz, socially liberal and had no clue what "fiscally conservative" meant.(I mean come'on, he tried price fixing!, what a putz) Reagan: had to rebuild the military and beat the Soviets at the cold war. Also, he continued Kennedy's marginal tax reductions. Kennedy Reduced the highest marginal tax rate from 90% to 70% (yes folks, its true) Reagan took it from 70% ( and eliminated many loopholes) to 34%. This spurred the largest economic growth in our history. It lasted until march 2000 (except for a short lived recession in '91), and resulted in a balanced budget by, what 95?, (i'm too tired to look it up right now). Bush SR: had a short-lived recession in 91 after about 7 years of booming Economic growth. The republicans had been in office for 11 years by that time. Not getting a recession in any 11 year period would be nothing short of a miracle. By the time Bill Clinton was elected, the recession was over and we had 7 years of economic growth, then another recession. Bush Jr.- Recession started before he was even elected, and was exacerbated by 9/11, therefore decreasing revenues. BB: A quote from one of the earlier posts referred to the Republicans "lying" about who they are. Certainly, Republicans are no longer fiscally conservative, which I thought was at least half of being conservative in the first place. RM: I wish they were more fiscally conservative.
In closing, I would like to say that the Government can do little to effect an economy as massive as ours. They try, but other than Kennedy and Reagan, no one has really done much to be successful in "tweaking" our economy. GW's tax cuts probably helped a little in giving the economy a boost, but the economy was probably going to heal itself anyway. We have recessions(about every 8 to 10 years), its part of the normal buisness cycles. they are caused by long periods of prosperity. Its gets to the point where we just don't need a new car or computer or cell phone or whatever. Or we take a look at our personal debt and we say, "jeesh, I gotta pay this down" So we tighten our belts. When it gets to the point that there are enough of us doing this, the economy slides into recession. Its easy to blame the politicians, but they have little to do with it.
|
|
bb
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by bb on Jun 8, 2004 17:08:20 GMT -5
RM,
RM>>In closing, I would like to say that the Government can do little to effect an economy as massive as ours. They try, but other than Kennedy and Reagan, no one has really done much to be successful in "tweaking" our economy.<<
First, there is plenty of truth in the above statement. The president, especially, has a limited effect on the overall state of the economy. The way it goes is, when the economy is bad, they get blamed - so they will also take credit when things go well.
However, the "Government" (both Congress and the Administration) have everything to do with the deficits their budgets produce and their contribution to the national debt.
>>BB: >>which is not expected to turn around anytime soon. >>RM: >>Huh? the recession is over, you should be happy about it. >>We have a mortgage. Look at it this way: >>3 trillion in debt. >>GDP about 3 trillion. >>Thats equilivent to you and I having a mortgage equal to 1 years income. >>How many of us can brag about that?
The thing I said was "not expected to turn around anytime soon" was the "even greater deficits and debt burden". This part is not under debate: Bush is producing record deficits and contributing greatly to the national debt. The fact that the "recession is over" has not changed the 5-10 year outlook, which I do not believe includes even the prospect of a balanced budget, much less any paydown of the national debt. Remember, every year that the budget is not balanced, the debt grows. This year alone, it will grow by HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS!
The numbers you quote above are not quite right, but we don't need exactness to debate the point - though I will point out that the national debt is more like 7 trillion. I will take you to task, however, for your rationale:
1) The GDP is not a fair comparison. Only the federal budget is available to pay down the debt, and the budget is a little under 2.5 trillion. Now, we're at the level where it's more like 3 years income. This is probably not much different than a typical family's income relative to their mortgage.
2) Comparing it to a mortgage is not realistic. Remember, when you finish paying off that mortgage, you've got all that equity built up! This is more like credit card debt, where it's a ball and chain on your life until paid off. I believe that we are paying about 20% of the budget toward debt, and the very fact of a budget deficit means you can't even pay the interest, much less any principal, on that debt.
3) Using the credit card analogy, if you have even a year's salary worth of credit card debt, man, you're in trouble. You probably won't ever be able to pay it off. Did you rack up that debt because of a bad economy, or because you lacked the discipline to keep it under control?
4) If the Reagan economic legacy was so powerful, then why haven't we yet paid off the debt from that time period? It's starting to move toward 30 years since that era started, and if that was a 30 year mortgage, we should have the bulk of it paid off by now.
5) Since only the federal budget can pay down debt, and since there are many commitments already, there is not much discretionary money to devote to dealing with the national debt. As the debt grows, I assume that the percentage of the budget devoted to paying interest will grow as well. This can only make it more difficult down the road.
I just don't buy it. We can't even pay the interest, and the national debt won't (can't) be paid off anytime soon. Meanwhile, the budget tricks continue - using Social Security proceeds to create the illusion of a smaller deficit, etc. Just who do you think will ever pay this off? I don't believe in taxing future generations, which is what it comes down to. As I said earlier, the Republicans aren't "cutting taxes" they are only passing those taxes down the line, *with interest*.
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Jun 8, 2004 18:53:51 GMT -5
BB Amen brother, deficits rob our children. And the republicans like them even better than the dems.
Rolin Mark If you got a $300 rebate and deficit fueled inflation took $600 out of your real income, how are you ahead in REAL dollars. Simple enough?
Bill L To use as an argument that everybody does it is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place.
Addition: I don't believe in subsidising athletic stadiums or any other business either. It just leads, as all subsidies do, to one region of the country stealing income from another. See I am a conservative and I do love baseball but they can pay thier on way. Read Nader on subsidising big business.
See I can be short and to the point.
Keep Rollin' Peace and Free Speach to All jashley
|
|
|
Post by Little Feat on Jun 9, 2004 17:42:14 GMT -5
BB Amen brother, deficits rob our children. And the republicans like them even better than the dems. jashley My theme song is "Apolitical Blues" but I wanted to weigh in on the comment about our kids getting robbed by deficits. Be it elephants or donkeys in conroll or good financial times or bad, there's 20% of American kids living in abject poverty. They are going to bed hungry. This has been a fairly consistent percentage for YEARS, no matter who is in DC pulling the strings. Politics is politics, the business is the rent... Rick
|
|
|
Post by jashley on Jun 9, 2004 18:41:51 GMT -5
Rick
When I got notce of a post I was just going to read quickly and not even log in,but..........I got to give you an amen brother. Dem or Rep, conservative or liberal the FACT that so many of our children don't get enough to eat, don't get proper medical attention, don't have decent clothes, or have a safe place to sleep at night is a national disgrace. This is by far the richest country in the world and if we can't take care of our children, who can?
Peace and Love to all of our children jashley
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jun 10, 2004 0:19:36 GMT -5
I saw a bumper sticker in Ft. Worth that said: "I bet you'll get your ass out and vote this time, Hippie!" God, I miss Abbie Hoffman!
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Jun 18, 2004 10:48:26 GMT -5
I have stayed out of this discussion, but I have a little "free" time (only work I have already performed is being taxed) so thought I would add a couple of thoughts.
20% of all children live in abject poverty! Pretty interesting thought when related to the idea we are currently trying to save people in remote parts of the world from debatable evils by spending money we don't have. It seems that efforts to address the social and economic ills of this nation should take precedence over defense against a paper tiger.
Please also consider the relationship between poverty and learning ... the zip-code nature of test scores attest to the fact that whatever is wrong with our public schools certainly is impacted by the ills of poverty. And that is about all that those test scores reveal.
The test scores, themselves, are not a remedy. The questions (and the kids' responses to them) are kept top secret (for security purposes, so no one can cheat). They cannot be used -- as they were initially designed -- to assess weaknesses, diagnose difficulties, or proscribe remedial action. They not only address the lowest, simplest form of thinking; they also require students to solve about 1 problem every 50 seconds, which clearly is not the type of critical thinking we would hope to see in an "educated" person. Until the kids can come to school rested, fed, safe and secure, the tests are not even really measuring what they are designed to measure. Schools may need some fixing (maybe lots of fixing), but you will not solve the problem of inequitble learning environments by not addressing the social issues that are at the root of poor performance.
But this administration is an administration of appearances and statistical manipulation, not substance (bait and switch is a good term for the Bush Administration's core tactics). It is also an administration that hires lawyers to weasel-word definitions in order to do what it wants. The Union of Concerned Scientists -- admittedly, scientists with an "agenda" (namely, for scientists to be a little more concerned about the ethics of their work and for science to be presented honestly) -- has spoken out repeatedly about the abuses of the Bush Administration of science and scientific "findings" in areas of critical policy-making. We find that Pentagon lawyers redefine definitions of "torture" and "prisoner of war" in order to coerce information to support dubious positions (just how badly do you think this Administration wants to find weapons of mass destruction?).
And where did those "weapons of mass destruction" come from? How do we know they are there (but can't say how we know, or where they are)? Why was Saddam Hussein a useful ally (not good or bad, just useful) when he waged a decade-long war against Iran? Who gave him tacit approval (and looked the other way) when he used gas against the Kurds? And where did he get that gas? Why did no one address his objections to Halliburton laterally drilling from Kuwait into the Iraqi oil fields until he did what he said he would do if the practice didn't stop -- invade Kuwait? And how DID Halliburton receive this no-bid contract to rebuild the Iraqi oil-fields once they got blown up in the war (which they didn't)?
John Kerry does not convince me that he will address these issues in a manner that I like. In my opinion, he is a wishy-washy middle-of-the road Democrat who has toned down his rhetoric and aligned himself with the traditional Democratic power-brokers in order to complete his public service. His good-old boy network is different only in substance to the network George Bush has surrounded himself with. He is therefore not my number one choice. But, having voted my conscience (and lost) in every election since 1968, I know that you seldom get what you want. Right now, I want this particular group of anti-democratic, secretive, the ends-justifies-the-means Republicans out of office. I know a lot of good, solid Republicans who feel the same way.
I am voting for Kerry.
And ... because I read all the messages in this topic ... I need to say something about Ronald Reagan. The deficits that he incurred building up the military have indeed left a legacy, and one with little merit to offset the costs. Luckily, the idea of blowing missiles armed with nuclear warheads up in the air over our cities before they hit the ground never got off the ground. And (more sarcastically), he did succeed in arming and training the Taliban to fight the commies in Afghanistan (including George Senior's good family friend, Osama bin Laden), and in selling missiles to the Ayotollah to provide arms and training to those freedom-loving Contras (and the wonderfully democratic regime in El Salvador who protected them) so they could protect their cocaine trade routes to San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland and Seattle
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jun 18, 2004 19:52:39 GMT -5
Another 2 cents. Something I'm finding more and more disturbing is the fact that so many people seem more concerned about the future of Bush and the Republican Party, than they do about the future of this Great Nation! If what BUSH/CHENEY are doing is proper, then why do they have to lie and manipulate so much? another bumper sticker: "The last time someone listened to a bush, folks wandered around the desert for 40 years!"
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jun 21, 2004 0:01:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Jul 6, 2004 17:56:58 GMT -5
Okay ... I just saw F9/11. Anyone else? Why is it that the folks who criticize the movie either (1) haven't seen it, or (2) don't dispute any of the facts presented, only hold out examples of what Clinton or Carter did (or didn't) do as "excuses" for the man in the oval office, now? I am willing to accept the old adage, "To the victor go the spoils" ... but I am not so sure I like my grandchildren's future being sold down the rathole of corporate cronyism. Will Kerry do better? I don't think he will do worse!
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jul 6, 2004 19:25:47 GMT -5
Scott, I saw F 9/11. Try to remember now...it's only 98% accurate. ;D People who criticize the movie do so because, as crazy as this sounds, are more concerned about Dubya than they are about the good ole USA, and "light enhanced" facts make em nervous. I think Kerry will do just fine. He better if he wants a second term, because the people will be watching him like "abused orphans". Someday we will be telling our grandchildren about the scariest president we ever had.
|
|