Increasing the deficit, increasing the debt, increasing our tax payments to service the debt, increasing short-term consumer spending at the expense of future taxpayers, increasing long-term interest rates and thereby harming the economy in the long run. But, probably helping Bush to get re-elected, so who cares!
This has been the most irresponsible government when it comes to budgetary issues, probably ever. Worse even than Reagan, if that's possible.
You're starting to hear rumbling from conservatives, not so much about the tax cuts, but about the big spending. The Bushies don't even make a pretense of trying to pay for it. Bush supposedly has his base locked up, but I wonder. If someone like Dean or Clark can project a Clintonian image of responsible government, and the media can actually start to talk about the truth of what Bush has done in this regard, I think more conservatives could defect.
The record of the last several decades of presidencies shows that if you are a fiscal conservative, the GOP is not your party, despite their rhetoric.
Yes, but I haven't read anywhere that they're connected to tax cuts.
That because it's complete horsesh*it. Anyone with half a brain knows that the money would have been better spent on the national debt, which is now at an unbelievable $6,919,174,402,688.05, up almost 1.5 trillion since the idiot took office.
Let's get something clear. While one of the benefits of cutting taxes is to stimulate the economy, the primary benefit is that the American people get to keep more of the money they earn, whether rich or poor. The income tax has been declared unconstitutional three times, most recently during the civil war. The twentieth century saw larger tax increases than anyone could have projected. It is the duty of the responsible in governmant to return income to the people who work and cut whatever programs necessary to facilitate that. Before we start handing out free medicine, acting as the official UN policy enforcement agency, increase education spending, we need to realize that the federal income tax was only supoosed to be a temporary means to "save the world" when we entered WWII. At that time a 1% income tax was placed only on the richest Americans. But it wasn't just the rich who got angry, the middle class feared that they would be next. Soon, the rich were taxed 35%, the middle class 17-28%, and the poor 10-15%, all to fund the most rapid increrase in the size and role of governement in history. Massive inreases in the beaurocratic infrastructure were disguised as "programs" that really did nothing more the boost membership in the Federal Employee Union, which happens to be one of the largest contributors of the Democratic party (Why do you think they federalized airport security?). After a half-century of liberal policy, we have not seen a decline in the number of poor or uneducated. We've only seen a decline in the number of people independent of the government.
I should also add that I acknowledge that the Republicans are no slouches when it comes to spending tax dollars. Bailing out businesses, passing the largest increase in public education spending in history (last year), posting our military in nearly every country but our own, and, of course, massive pork barreling by the Republicans are also largely to blame.
Let's get something clear. While one of the benefits of cutting taxes is to stimulate the economy, the primary benefit is that the American people get to keep more of the money they earn, whether rich or poor.
Funny, your almost making it sound like paying off the national debt doesn't benefit the consumer?
Thats like saying someone who pays $1000 towards my morgage isn't giving me any money.
Funny, your almost making it sound like paying off the national debt doesn't benefit the consumer?
Thats like saying someone who pays $1000 towards my morgage isn't giving me any money.
When's the last time a polititian actually took steps to reduce the national debt? Many talk the talk, but we've yet to see some action. It's all rhetoric. Paying off the national debt will indeed help millions of Americans, but it won't help millions more who have paid taxes their entire lives and will be dead and gone before the national debt is even close to eliminated. Paying off the debt will take a load off the next generation but the boomers are screwed without a tax cut in their pockets. I've told my congressman that I favor a complete moratorium on new spending until the debt is clear, but a tax cut isn't "spending," it's just a reduction in the amount the governement can spend. A tax cut is the American people giving the government a pay cut.
When's the last time a polititian actually took steps to reduce the national debt? Many talk the talk, but we've yet to see some action.
Maybe, but on the other hand, not many presidents have had a 5.7 trillion surplus.
Paying off the debt will take a load off the next generation but the boomers are screwed without a tax cut in their pockets.
The boomers should pay at least PART of the debt which they are responsible for racking up (which is most of it).
You are now, what is commonly referred to as "talking out of your ass"
a tax cut isn't "spending," it's just a reduction in the amount the governement can spend.
LOL! Funny, how Bush is currently "spending" $2.5 billion a day more than the country makes. 20% of the national debt was accumulated under Bushes watch ... not too shabby for what will amount to a one term president.
The boomers should pay at least PART of the debt which they are responsible for racking up (which is most of it).
The upper-middle-class boomers have been paying about 30% of every paycheck their entire lives. That's not their part? The whole reason many of these soon-to-retire boomers need a prescription drug benefit is that they've been unable to save with Uncla Sam taking one-third of their earnings. If you're going to ask people to "pay their part," why don't we repeal welfare, medicare, and medicaid?
Why would you assume I'm a Bush fan? Just because I'm a tax cut fan? I agree that Bush has been completely irresposible in terms of spending. I think his tax cuts are probably the only responsible action he's taken. I didn't vote for him in 2000 and won't vote for any Republican until they stop spending like liberals.
Let's get something clear. While one of the benefits of cutting taxes is to stimulate the economy, the primary benefit is that the American people get to keep more of the money they earn, whether rich or poor.
This all sounds good, but you can't talk about reducing taxes without talking about the other half of the equation. The problem with Bush's approach is that it increases federal spending, it doesn't decrease it. That's right, cutting taxes increases gov't spending, because you end up with larger debt payments.
It's analogous to Bush being the head of a family who goes out and gets a bunch of credit cards, and with them buys a new car, jewelry for the wife, and toys for the kids. Not only haven't they paid for those goodies, but now they're also saddled with the interest payments on the credit cards. Of course, the wife and kids say "we love daddy," but they're not thinking about the fact that daddy's going to divorce them after 4 years and leave them saddled with the financial mess.
Just compare Reganomics to Clintonomics. Which period of growth was longer and created more jobs? What happened to the deficit and debt after each? What do you think will happen after Bushonomics has been in place for several more years?
Just compare Reganomics to Clintonomics. Which period of growth was longer and created more jobs? What happened to the deficit and debt after each? What do you think will happen after Bushonomics has been in place for several more years?
Clintonomics? A large portion of the "boom" of the 90's was based on grossly overestimated technology companies...not Clinton's economic policy. If anything, it was Regan's tax cuts and deregulation that led to corporate investment in the eighties and early nineties and began yielding results in the mid to late nineties. How long do you think it takes to "trickle-down"? But much of that growth and job creation was temporary. That's why as soon as these companies failed to deliver real money instead of stock options, the market took a nose-dive. Now that the technology market is more realistically valued, they've been forced to slow-down investments and lay-off workers. Neither the boom under Clinton or the bust under Bush had much to do with eithers' fiscal policy, but more to do with the general ebb and flow of economics in times of intense innovation spurred by an increase in disposable income.
Yes, Clintonomics. Maybe more properly Rubinomics. Or better yet, just common sense: that the primary economic responsibility of the federal government is to be, well, responsible.
I agree that the government doesn't have much effect on the economy, but what little it does have can be traced to its influence through interest rates, which most economists (with the exception of those with a clear anti-Clinton agenda) agree are affected by the national debt.
And even if you don't believe that, at the least the 1990s show that it's possible to have a strong economy while at the same time balancing the budget. The Reagan-Bush economic policy seems to be that the only way to have a strong economy is to run up the debt massively. Clintonomics definitively proved that wrong, so why are we going back to the old discredited polices of the 80s? Could it be, maybe, possibly, just a re-election strategy? I think so.
Argento, look one post up and one post down from your own post. I'd say you're surrounded.
What do I care? I'm right. The tax cuts did help like Bush or hate him. Consumers are spending more, the economy is growing, people have more confidence then they had. Granted I still don't like Bush but it did work.
What do I care? I'm right. The tax cuts did help like Bush or hate him. Consumers are spending more, the economy is growing, people have more confidence then they had. Granted I still don't like Bush but it did work.
I'd say you shouldn't care, but you're still wrong. The tax cuts have had no discernible effect. This is explained pretty clearly in some of the posts you don't care about. You probably should read them and pick up on some of the details.
Please tell me in what post on this thread you pointed out to ANYBODY anything worth the air you used to do it. You have given only opinion (if even on the subject) and no links or evidence to anything.
Comments
Originally posted by Argento
Did you not read about the econ growth, GDP growth, and all those other things that haven't had a "Postitive effect on the economy?"
Yes, but I haven't read anywhere that they're connected to tax cuts.
Originally posted by bunge
What 'job' are the tax cuts doing?
Increasing the deficit, increasing the debt, increasing our tax payments to service the debt, increasing short-term consumer spending at the expense of future taxpayers, increasing long-term interest rates and thereby harming the economy in the long run. But, probably helping Bush to get re-elected, so who cares!
This has been the most irresponsible government when it comes to budgetary issues, probably ever. Worse even than Reagan, if that's possible.
You're starting to hear rumbling from conservatives, not so much about the tax cuts, but about the big spending. The Bushies don't even make a pretense of trying to pay for it. Bush supposedly has his base locked up, but I wonder. If someone like Dean or Clark can project a Clintonian image of responsible government, and the media can actually start to talk about the truth of what Bush has done in this regard, I think more conservatives could defect.
The record of the last several decades of presidencies shows that if you are a fiscal conservative, the GOP is not your party, despite their rhetoric.
Originally posted by bunge
Yes, but I haven't read anywhere that they're connected to tax cuts.
Do you live in a cave? Possibly a hermit where nothing reaches you??
One
I'd send you more but I have to go back to college.
Originally posted by bunge
Yes, but I haven't read anywhere that they're connected to tax cuts.
That because it's complete horsesh*it. Anyone with half a brain knows that the money would have been better spent on the national debt, which is now at an unbelievable $6,919,174,402,688.05, up almost 1.5 trillion since the idiot took office.
Originally posted by Michael Wilkie
Let's get something clear. While one of the benefits of cutting taxes is to stimulate the economy, the primary benefit is that the American people get to keep more of the money they earn, whether rich or poor.
Funny, your almost making it sound like paying off the national debt doesn't benefit the consumer?
Thats like saying someone who pays $1000 towards my morgage isn't giving me any money.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Funny, your almost making it sound like paying off the national debt doesn't benefit the consumer?
Thats like saying someone who pays $1000 towards my morgage isn't giving me any money.
When's the last time a polititian actually took steps to reduce the national debt? Many talk the talk, but we've yet to see some action. It's all rhetoric. Paying off the national debt will indeed help millions of Americans, but it won't help millions more who have paid taxes their entire lives and will be dead and gone before the national debt is even close to eliminated. Paying off the debt will take a load off the next generation but the boomers are screwed without a tax cut in their pockets. I've told my congressman that I favor a complete moratorium on new spending until the debt is clear, but a tax cut isn't "spending," it's just a reduction in the amount the governement can spend. A tax cut is the American people giving the government a pay cut.
Originally posted by Michael Wilkie
When's the last time a polititian actually took steps to reduce the national debt? Many talk the talk, but we've yet to see some action.
Maybe, but on the other hand, not many presidents have had a 5.7 trillion surplus.
Paying off the debt will take a load off the next generation but the boomers are screwed without a tax cut in their pockets.
The boomers should pay at least PART of the debt which they are responsible for racking up (which is most of it).
You are now, what is commonly referred to as "talking out of your ass"
a tax cut isn't "spending," it's just a reduction in the amount the governement can spend.
LOL! Funny, how Bush is currently "spending" $2.5 billion a day more than the country makes. 20% of the national debt was accumulated under Bushes watch ... not too shabby for what will amount to a one term president.
Oh! Look everyone! Because of the tax cuts, we are spending LESS! Boy, do I feel like an idiot.
http://cbs.marketwatch.com
[/Sarcasm]
Originally posted by the cool gut
The boomers should pay at least PART of the debt which they are responsible for racking up (which is most of it).
The upper-middle-class boomers have been paying about 30% of every paycheck their entire lives. That's not their part? The whole reason many of these soon-to-retire boomers need a prescription drug benefit is that they've been unable to save with Uncla Sam taking one-third of their earnings. If you're going to ask people to "pay their part," why don't we repeal welfare, medicare, and medicaid?
Why would you assume I'm a Bush fan? Just because I'm a tax cut fan? I agree that Bush has been completely irresposible in terms of spending. I think his tax cuts are probably the only responsible action he's taken. I didn't vote for him in 2000 and won't vote for any Republican until they stop spending like liberals.
Originally posted by Michael Wilkie
Let's get something clear. While one of the benefits of cutting taxes is to stimulate the economy, the primary benefit is that the American people get to keep more of the money they earn, whether rich or poor.
This all sounds good, but you can't talk about reducing taxes without talking about the other half of the equation. The problem with Bush's approach is that it increases federal spending, it doesn't decrease it. That's right, cutting taxes increases gov't spending, because you end up with larger debt payments.
It's analogous to Bush being the head of a family who goes out and gets a bunch of credit cards, and with them buys a new car, jewelry for the wife, and toys for the kids. Not only haven't they paid for those goodies, but now they're also saddled with the interest payments on the credit cards. Of course, the wife and kids say "we love daddy," but they're not thinking about the fact that daddy's going to divorce them after 4 years and leave them saddled with the financial mess.
Just compare Reganomics to Clintonomics. Which period of growth was longer and created more jobs? What happened to the deficit and debt after each? What do you think will happen after Bushonomics has been in place for several more years?
Originally posted by BRussell
Just compare Reganomics to Clintonomics. Which period of growth was longer and created more jobs? What happened to the deficit and debt after each? What do you think will happen after Bushonomics has been in place for several more years?
Clintonomics? A large portion of the "boom" of the 90's was based on grossly overestimated technology companies...not Clinton's economic policy. If anything, it was Regan's tax cuts and deregulation that led to corporate investment in the eighties and early nineties and began yielding results in the mid to late nineties. How long do you think it takes to "trickle-down"? But much of that growth and job creation was temporary. That's why as soon as these companies failed to deliver real money instead of stock options, the market took a nose-dive. Now that the technology market is more realistically valued, they've been forced to slow-down investments and lay-off workers. Neither the boom under Clinton or the bust under Bush had much to do with eithers' fiscal policy, but more to do with the general ebb and flow of economics in times of intense innovation spurred by an increase in disposable income.
I agree that the government doesn't have much effect on the economy, but what little it does have can be traced to its influence through interest rates, which most economists (with the exception of those with a clear anti-Clinton agenda) agree are affected by the national debt.
And even if you don't believe that, at the least the 1990s show that it's possible to have a strong economy while at the same time balancing the budget. The Reagan-Bush economic policy seems to be that the only way to have a strong economy is to run up the debt massively. Clintonomics definitively proved that wrong, so why are we going back to the old discredited polices of the 80s? Could it be, maybe, possibly, just a re-election strategy? I think so.
Originally posted by bunge
Argento, look one post up and one post down from your own post. I'd say you're surrounded.
What do I care? I'm right. The tax cuts did help like Bush or hate him. Consumers are spending more, the economy is growing, people have more confidence then they had. Granted I still don't like Bush but it did work.
Originally posted by Argento
What do I care? I'm right. The tax cuts did help like Bush or hate him. Consumers are spending more, the economy is growing, people have more confidence then they had. Granted I still don't like Bush but it did work.
I'd say you shouldn't care, but you're still wrong. The tax cuts have had no discernible effect. This is explained pretty clearly in some of the posts you don't care about. You probably should read them and pick up on some of the details.
This is explained pretty clearly in some of the posts you don't care about.
which ones were those?
Originally posted by alcimedes
which ones were those?
Try reading the ones I pointed out to him/her.
Originally posted by bunge
Try reading the ones I pointed out to him/her.
Please tell me in what post on this thread you pointed out to ANYBODY anything worth the air you used to do it. You have given only opinion (if even on the subject) and no links or evidence to anything.