"Any economist will tell you cannot have this level of debt of increasing deficits without eventually it affecting interest rates and inflation," he said. "Those are the greatest enemies of middle-income Americans and retired Americans."
"Any economist will tell you cannot have this level of debt of increasing deficits without eventually it affecting interest rates and inflation," he said. "Those are the greatest enemies of middle-income Americans and retired Americans."
I never said tax cuts were a good thing, ever. Search this entire fourm and read all my posts. All I said was they helped boost the economy which they did. As of right now they have helped the economy. They have succeeded in that account. Every single source on the planet that is credible will tell you that.
anyone watch the commentary on ABC news where an accountant or whatever from Walmart remarked that in the past, the buying trends used to be that from paycheck to right before the next one, purchases dipped slightly right before the new check. he says that now he's seeing a precipitous drop in sales right before the next paycheck when there is a huge spike in sales. His take on this is that people are more or less broke by the end of the two week pay cycle. ABC news says it's because they have taken on more debt. Now seeing as how the tax check was basically a one time thing, where are people getting this extra discretionary income or are they piling on new debt? in extension this huge increase in "black friday" spending could merely be people getting into more debt. So what are we going to see in terms of personal bankruptcies?
The tax cuts have done nothing for the economy ( but make the deficit worse ). Also I'm afraid this " recovery " may not last. And before SDW starts up that's a fear not a hope.
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.
You actually believe that most people if given back thier taxes would put it away or invest it until they retire? If THAT was the case, all those poeple with home equity loans would have invested that debt for retirement. Americans spend, Chinese save.
For what it's worth, I believe Bush was right. This kind of economics worked for Regan, and it's working for Bush Jr now too. I'm hoping to see a sustained recovery and another four years of Bush!
But at what price? Bush is flooding our nation with the largest deficits in history. We're literally raping the future to avoid paying for our own largesse in the present. Bush's tax cuts on you ensure massive tax hikes on your children. And that's just utterly immoral.
We should pay fully for everything we spend. If Bush wants more spending he needs to raise revenue levels.
what I find interesting is this notion that the government has such a great involvement in the economic issues of this country.
The Federal Budget controls 20% of the GDP of the United States. Where that money is spent determines a good deal of the character of America's economic output. Of course, when that money is being used to pay down debt it's wasted, which is another reason that the tax cut is bad.
Quote:
The only really important tie in is tax, and also consider that the only tie between most americans and the goverment is taxation, a well planned tax cut is perhaps the single most effective move a politician can make in improving the economy and in gaining support.
Not true. A tax cut is indirect stimulus, and as such inherently less powerful than direct stimulus. If the government gives a person a $100 tax cut, not all of that money will necessarily go back into the economy. The person may save $20, or use $50 to pay down credit card debt. $100 in tax cuts does not add $100 to the GDP. However, $100 in government spending (except on debt interest and payments) does add $100 to the GDP. Multiply that by 300 million folks in America, and you get the big picture.
If you're trying to stimulate the economy, increasing government spending will be more effective than cutting taxes almost every time. Bush did both, sadly, which results in major deficits, which display both poor economic planning and a lack of morals.
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.
Not true. Because of functions like the Earned Income Tax Credit, many poorer Americans received little to no tax relief, while the rich received a major pay day. Bush's tax cut made the tax code more regressive.
Quote:
The income tax has been declared unconstitutional three times, most recently during the civil war.
The constitution was amended, so what's your point?
Quote:
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.
It is the duty of a responsible government to provide to the public those services which the government can better provide than a market economy, to work to lessen the impact of poverty and disease, and to raise whatever funds are necessary to facilitate that.
Quote:
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.
That's pretty inaccurate. You're missing entire major moves in tax policy. By the end of World War II taxes were far higher than 1%. Eisenhower extended the tax base to include all Americans. The rich are not taxed at 35% -- only dollars above a certain cut off are taxed at 35%. Only the richest Americans actually pay anywhere close to the actual top marginal rate.
Your view on taxes is so ignorantly simplistic that it's no wonder you don't appreciate the need for government revenue.
The upper-middle-class boomers have been paying about 30% of every paycheck their entire lives. That's not their part?
Apparently not, since revenues don't match expenditures. They've voted in governments pushing more spending, so they have to pay for that spending.
Quote:
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.
That's strange, because previous generations still managed to save, despite the fact that until the 1980s marginal tax rates were much, much higher (up to 90% in the top bracket) than they are today.
Quote:
If you're going to ask people to "pay their part," why don't we repeal welfare, medicare, and medicaid?
Because civilized nations care for their poor, their elderly and their sick.
But at what price? Bush is flooding our nation with the largest deficits in history. We're literally raping the future to avoid paying for our own largesse in the present. Bush's tax cuts on you ensure massive tax hikes on your children. And that's just utterly immoral.
We should pay fully for everything we spend. If Bush wants more spending he needs to raise revenue levels.
The economists on the board should feel free to correct me but if someone spends $50 on thier credit card debt then doesn't that get recorded as a part of the GDP? After all Credit Card companies and Banks make thier money off of people financing debt.
Even if it's counted towards GDP (but I'm not sure that it is) it doesn't actually help the economy. In fact, it contracts the money supply. Credit extends the money supply and helps excite economic growth. Paying down private debt actually does the latter.
At best, paying down personal debt is a neutral action to the economy. At worst, it harms the economy by retracting money supply. Either way, it doesn't help the economy.
Georgie Boy can't blame unemployment on Osama---er, I mean Saddam. (Who is Osama? I just can't remember.) It started rising immediately after the world realized they'd be saddled with him as President for the next four years.
Your government could be cold as ice and hope for the rest of the world to bail you out (buy dollars). Smart tactics but not quite fair. That would lead the rest of the world to try to make the role of american economy less important on the long run. Actually this reminds of the discussion about arab oil going on. Just like some arab countries are using their influence on the oil prices as an instrument of power US can (and probably will) use their influence on the economy for the same goal. And just like we are beginning to try to make us independent of Arab oil we would try to make us independent of the american economy. The migration to the euro for energy bargaining could be seen as a first step.
although there's nothing like looking at numbers 15 years down the road and predicting the economy/debt is always a joke.
that's how our state went from a "projected" 8 billion dollar surplus to a "projected" 6 billion dollar shortfall. all in a year and a half.
in each case, the real numbers were much less. then they took the current situation and projected it out a few decades. oh well. such is predicitive economics nowadays.
Comments
Think.
That might not be all he was wrong about either.
Originally posted by bunge
"Any economist will tell you cannot have this level of debt of increasing deficits without eventually it affecting interest rates and inflation," he said. "Those are the greatest enemies of middle-income Americans and retired Americans."
Think.
That might not be all he was wrong about either.
I never said tax cuts were a good thing, ever. Search this entire fourm and read all my posts. All I said was they helped boost the economy which they did. As of right now they have helped the economy. They have succeeded in that account. Every single source on the planet that is credible will tell you that.
Originally posted by Argento
As of right now [tax cuts] have helped the economy.
No, they haven't. The deficit proves me (and many others) right.
Originally posted by Michael Wilkie
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.
You actually believe that most people if given back thier taxes would put it away or invest it until they retire? If THAT was the case, all those poeple with home equity loans would have invested that debt for retirement. Americans spend, Chinese save.
Originally posted by DMBand0026
For what it's worth, I believe Bush was right. This kind of economics worked for Regan, and it's working for Bush Jr now too. I'm hoping to see a sustained recovery and another four years of Bush!
But at what price? Bush is flooding our nation with the largest deficits in history. We're literally raping the future to avoid paying for our own largesse in the present. Bush's tax cuts on you ensure massive tax hikes on your children. And that's just utterly immoral.
We should pay fully for everything we spend. If Bush wants more spending he needs to raise revenue levels.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
what I find interesting is this notion that the government has such a great involvement in the economic issues of this country.
The Federal Budget controls 20% of the GDP of the United States. Where that money is spent determines a good deal of the character of America's economic output. Of course, when that money is being used to pay down debt it's wasted, which is another reason that the tax cut is bad.
The only really important tie in is tax, and also consider that the only tie between most americans and the goverment is taxation, a well planned tax cut is perhaps the single most effective move a politician can make in improving the economy and in gaining support.
Not true. A tax cut is indirect stimulus, and as such inherently less powerful than direct stimulus. If the government gives a person a $100 tax cut, not all of that money will necessarily go back into the economy. The person may save $20, or use $50 to pay down credit card debt. $100 in tax cuts does not add $100 to the GDP. However, $100 in government spending (except on debt interest and payments) does add $100 to the GDP. Multiply that by 300 million folks in America, and you get the big picture.
If you're trying to stimulate the economy, increasing government spending will be more effective than cutting taxes almost every time. Bush did both, sadly, which results in major deficits, which display both poor economic planning and a lack of morals.
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.
Not true. Because of functions like the Earned Income Tax Credit, many poorer Americans received little to no tax relief, while the rich received a major pay day. Bush's tax cut made the tax code more regressive.
The income tax has been declared unconstitutional three times, most recently during the civil war.
The constitution was amended, so what's your point?
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.
It is the duty of a responsible government to provide to the public those services which the government can better provide than a market economy, to work to lessen the impact of poverty and disease, and to raise whatever funds are 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.
That's pretty inaccurate. You're missing entire major moves in tax policy. By the end of World War II taxes were far higher than 1%. Eisenhower extended the tax base to include all Americans. The rich are not taxed at 35% -- only dollars above a certain cut off are taxed at 35%. Only the richest Americans actually pay anywhere close to the actual top marginal rate.
Your view on taxes is so ignorantly simplistic that it's no wonder you don't appreciate the need for government revenue.
Originally posted by Michael Wilkie
The upper-middle-class boomers have been paying about 30% of every paycheck their entire lives. That's not their part?
Apparently not, since revenues don't match expenditures. They've voted in governments pushing more spending, so they have to pay for that spending.
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.
That's strange, because previous generations still managed to save, despite the fact that until the 1980s marginal tax rates were much, much higher (up to 90% in the top bracket) than they are today.
If you're going to ask people to "pay their part," why don't we repeal welfare, medicare, and medicaid?
Because civilized nations care for their poor, their elderly and their sick.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Wow. Delusional.
Wow. Denial.
Originally posted by Kirkland
But at what price? Bush is flooding our nation with the largest deficits in history. We're literally raping the future to avoid paying for our own largesse in the present. Bush's tax cuts on you ensure massive tax hikes on your children. And that's just utterly immoral.
We should pay fully for everything we spend. If Bush wants more spending he needs to raise revenue levels.
The economists on the board should feel free to correct me but if someone spends $50 on thier credit card debt then doesn't that get recorded as a part of the GDP? After all Credit Card companies and Banks make thier money off of people financing debt.
or is the GDP only determined by material goods?
At best, paying down personal debt is a neutral action to the economy. At worst, it harms the economy by retracting money supply. Either way, it doesn't help the economy.
Thank you.
Georgie Boy can't blame unemployment on Osama---er, I mean Saddam. (Who is Osama? I just can't remember.) It started rising immediately after the world realized they'd be saddled with him as President for the next four years.
Originally posted by bunge
Maybe not.
Your government could be cold as ice and hope for the rest of the world to bail you out (buy dollars). Smart tactics but not quite fair. That would lead the rest of the world to try to make the role of american economy less important on the long run. Actually this reminds of the discussion about arab oil going on. Just like some arab countries are using their influence on the oil prices as an instrument of power US can (and probably will) use their influence on the economy for the same goal. And just like we are beginning to try to make us independent of Arab oil we would try to make us independent of the american economy. The migration to the euro for energy bargaining could be seen as a first step.
that's how our state went from a "projected" 8 billion dollar surplus to a "projected" 6 billion dollar shortfall. all in a year and a half.
in each case, the real numbers were much less. then they took the current situation and projected it out a few decades. oh well. such is predicitive economics nowadays.