Bush never plans on paying for the taxcuts--he just keeps spending!!!

[faust9]

While Bush himself is not in control of the purse strings--the congress is-- Bush IS the party's leader and generally the face of the Republican party. Well, race fans remember all those promises-promises Bush's laid down about a tax-free utopia where seniors get their drugs for free and all kids go to schools using vouchers? Well it seems the bean counters in the Republican dungeons of Grover Norquist's (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Grover_Norquist) estate have miscalculated to the tune of 3 or so TRILLION dollars!!!

Way to be fiscally responsible there Connecticuit-texan!!!


Oh for those who haven't see anything about this yet here's and article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18876-2004Sep13.html

Enjoy.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by faust9
While Bush himself is not in control of the purse strings--the congress is-- Bush IS the party's leader and generally the face of the Republican party. Well, race fans remember all those promises-promises Bush's laid down about a tax-free utopia where seniors get their drugs for free and all kids go to schools using vouchers? Well it seems the bean counters in the Republican dungeons of Grover Norquist's (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Grover_Norquist) estate have miscalculated to the tune of 3 or so TRILLION dollars!!!

Way to be fiscally responsible there Connecticuit-texan!!!


Oh for those who haven't see anything about this yet here's and article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18876-2004Sep13.html

Enjoy.


But haven't you heard? " Deficits can be a good thing. "

Besides we won't feel the pinch....much. Just our kids will. :rolleyes:

[MarcUK]

Ofcourse Bush doesn't plan on paying for the taxcuts. Im sure he is a regular reader of www.raptureready.com ,so what is the point of worrying about national debt, when the good sun-god Jesus is about to return at any moment to whisk them all up into the sky. There is no national debt in heaven stoopid!

btw I found this at their site:lol: :lol:

"I have read that overly religious people, through MRI brain scanning, have a condition in their brain where certain pathways close down, cutting off critical thinking, leaving them in a state of thinking that they are "chosen" by God. This effects people of all ethnicities- which explains islamic fundamentalism too "

[SDW2001]

Here's the problem:


Tax cuts are not an expenditure. They don't need to be "payed" for. The fact that you used that verbage doesn't surprise me, though. I've met many liberals who used the same flawed logic. I agree spending needs to be controlled. No argument about that. Expenditures must=Revenue, not vice versa.

[BRussell]

It's one reason I wouldn't mind seeing Bush get reelected - to face the consequences of his own actions. Personal responsibility and all that. It really sucks if he can go in and with his two main programs, the tax cuts and the war in Iraq, and fuck things up only to leave the adults to clean up the mess. I want to see him face the problems he's created.

[bunge]

Originally posted by BRussell
I want to see him face the problems he's created.

He should have to do that from a jail cell.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BRussell
It's one reason I wouldn't mind seeing Bush get reelected - to face the consequences of his own actions. Personal responsibility and all that. It really sucks if he can go in and with his two main programs, the tax cuts and the war in Iraq, and fuck things up only to leave the adults to clean up the mess. I want to see him face the problems he's created.

Are you really that concerned about the deficit? Do you really think we'll fail in Iraq? I am concerned about both situations. However, I don't feel the deficit is the problem it's being made out to be. I am actually less concerned about Iraq. We've done a lot of good things, and I feel confident that Democracy will be achieved. I do think the security and terror situation is a serious issue. However, I also think that it's been an overall successful effort. True, we've lost 1,000 troops. But that number is actually very, very low when you consider the magnitude of the task. Compare this number with virtually any major conflict of the twentieth century, and a more realistic picture is created (except for the Gulf War, of course). There have been single battles we're we've lost 5 times that many military members. Of the total force we sent there of about 150,000, we've lost about 1/2 of one percent.

You don't strike me as an alarmist. I'm wondering what exactly you're thinking about these two issues.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by jimmac
But haven't you heard? " Deficits can be a good thing. "

Besides we won't feel the pinch....much. Just our kids will. :rolleyes:

Actually if you saw the current obligation created by Social Security and Medicare for the babyboomers, you would realize that what Bush or Kerry has proposed is miniscule in comparison.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
He should have to do that from a jail cell.

Feeling lonely again? I'm sure you'll get parole next time.

Nick

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Here's the problem:


Tax cuts are not an expenditure. They don't need to be "payed" for. The fact that you used that verbage doesn't surprise me, though. I've met many liberals who used the same flawed logic. I agree spending needs to be controlled. No argument about that. Expenditures must=Revenue, not vice versa.

-----------------------------------------------------------
" Tax cuts are not an expenditure. They don't need to be "payed" for. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Uh, I hate to break this to you but the money saved by tax payers in these cuts has to come from somewhere.


But you do paint a lovely picture......;)

[jimmac]

Originally posted by BRussell
It's one reason I wouldn't mind seeing Bush get reelected - to face the consequences of his own actions. Personal responsibility and all that. It really sucks if he can go in and with his two main programs, the tax cuts and the war in Iraq, and fuck things up only to leave the adults to clean up the mess. I want to see him face the problems he's created.


Unfortunately it's more likely we'll face the consequences of his actions. Unless he's caught with his fingers in the cookie jar like Nixon was he'll get off just being remembered as a really bad mistake.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Are you really that concerned about the deficit? Do you really think we'll fail in Iraq? I am concerned about both situations. However, I don't feel the deficit is the problem it's being made out to be. I am actually less concerned about Iraq. We've done a lot of good things, and I feel confident that Democracy will be achieved. I do think the security and terror situation is a serious issue. However, I also think that it's been an overall successful effort. True, we've lost 1,000 troops. But that number is actually very, very low when you consider the magnitude of the task. Compare this number with virtually any major conflict of the twentieth century, and a more realistic picture is created (except for the Gulf War, of course). There have been single battles we're we've lost 5 times that many military members. Of the total force we sent there of about 150,000, we've lost about 1/2 of one percent.

You don't strike me as an alarmist. I'm wondering what exactly you're thinking about these two issues.

:lol: :no:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
Actually if you saw the current obligation created by Social Security and Medicare for the babyboomers, you would realize that what Bush or Kerry has proposed is miniscule in comparison.

Nick


I am a babyboomer ( age 51 ) and my mom used to work for Social Security ( 25 years ). This problem has been around for a long time! Back in the early 70's she told me : " When you get to retirement age don't depend on SS. The whole system is rotten from the core out and may not exist by then ".

SS should have been treated like a savings account that you don't touch. Unfortunately many administrations haven't been able to do that. For a long time now.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by jimmac
I am a babyboomer ( age 51 ) and my mom used to work for Social Security ( 25 years ). This problem has been around for a long time! Back in the early 70's she told me : " When you get to retirement age don't depend on SS. The whole system is rotten from the core out and may not exist by then ".

SS should have been treated like a savings account that you don't touch. Unfortunately many administrations haven't been able to do that. For a long time now.

Yes all government leaders have spent our retirement and then you have the gumption to wonder why I don't care to trust them with my children's educational savings accounts, my healthcare, my seed money for a business, my investments, etc.

:lol:
Nick

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Are you really that concerned about the deficit? Do you really think we'll fail in Iraq? I am concerned about both situations. However, I don't feel the deficit is the problem it's being made out to be. I am actually less concerned about Iraq. We've done a lot of good things, and I feel confident that Democracy will be achieved. I do think the security and terror situation is a serious issue. However, I also think that it's been an overall successful effort. True, we've lost 1,000 troops. But that number is actually very, very low when you consider the magnitude of the task. Compare this number with virtually any major conflict of the twentieth century, and a more realistic picture is created (except for the Gulf War, of course). There have been single battles we're we've lost 5 times that many military members. Of the total force we sent there of about 150,000, we've lost about 1/2 of one percent.

You don't strike me as an alarmist. I'm wondering what exactly you're thinking about these two issues. On Iraq, I think there's about as good of a chance of having an anti-american Islamist theocracy (i.e., worse than Saddam, as far as US strategic interests go) as there is of having a friendly democratic republic. As far as I can tell, everyone recognizes this, and the only people who don't acknowledge it are simply trying to protect the president politically.

On the deficit, IMO, the long-term situation, assuming the tax cuts are permanent, are worse than they were in the late 80s/early 90s. At that time, it took tax increases and years of spending restraint before the problem was solved. People often use the surpluses of the late 90s to argue that deficits are easily reversed, but it was anything but easy. It took many years of tax increases and spending restraint, starting around 1990 with GHW Bush. Arguably, both GHW Bush and the Democratic Congress lost re-election in large part due to their tax increases.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
Yes all government leaders have spent our retirement and then you have the gumption to wonder why I don't care to trust them with my children's educational savings accounts, my healthcare, my seed money for a business, my investments, etc.

:lol:
Nick


There's a name for what your doing. It's called stretching.

[bunge]

Originally posted by trumptman
Feeling lonely again? I'm sure you'll get parole next time.

Was that an attempt at humor? It didn't work.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by jimmac
There's a name for what your doing. It's called stretching.

It might be stretching if the government had only spent part of the trust fund or were balanced but used the trust fund to achieve that balance. In otherwords if the government were onl y a little fiscally irresponsible, we could argue to what degree. You could then argue that I have gone well beyond that degree and are "stretching it."

But the reality is that the government, be it under Republicans or Democrats has spent every cent it can get its hands on and then some. It has a $25-40 trillion dollar obligation to the boomers, is sitting 6 trillion in debt and has already spent every dime to be put toward that boomer obligation to only be 6 trillion in debt.

How is it stretching to suggest that they would continue to do so with any other money handed to them?

And don't declare that taxes or tax cuts can fix the problem. There is not a tax that they can raise that would cover those types of shortfalls. The reality is that we spend more than we make.

Nick

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
It might be stretching if the government had only spent part of the trust fund or were balanced but used the trust fund to achieve that balance. In otherwords if the government were onl y a little fiscally irresponsible, we could argue to what degree. You could then argue that I have gone well beyond that degree and are "stretching it."

But the reality is that the government, be it under Republicans or Democrats has spent every cent it can get its hands on and then some. It has a $25-40 trillion dollar obligation to the boomers, is sitting 6 trillion in debt and has already spent every dime to be put toward that boomer obligation to only be 6 trillion in debt.

How is it stretching to suggest that they would continue to do so with any other money handed to them?

And don't declare that taxes or tax cuts can fix the problem. There is not a tax that they can raise that would cover those types of shortfalls. The reality is that we spend more than we make.

Nick


Expecting actions to be the same for different situations ( apples, oranges ) is supposition and speculation.

[THT]

Originally posted by BRussell
It's one reason I wouldn't mind seeing Bush get reelected - to face the consequences of his own actions. Personal responsibility and all that.

Er, you know George W Bush, and George W Bush is going to see those consequences, and say we are making progress! Turning the corner! And of course nothing is going to be done. It's all a political game to him, that's it, and as long as he wins, it's all that matters, regardless of the situation on the ground.

It's to the point now that Iraq is going the way of Iran or Vietnam in the 70s. The course is set, and we're not going to change it. It was an extremely risky proposition from the beginning.

For the economy, unless we can innovate ourselves to new markets - something I have zero confidence in Bush promoting - our situation will simply decline to an equilibrium with other low tech nations. The the upcoming decades will belong to the Indians and the East Asians.

Having Bush for another four years is something we really shouldn't be "minding". :\