28 Jul 08
Originally posted by SquelchbelchWell, certainly the Democrats will run the tab up a lot faster than any Republican, but the whole problem starts with politicians who don't understand what the core values of government are, nor understand that every time they pass a tax increase or subsidy or vote to increase government aid, they're taking money out of the pockets of the people who earned it.
It's all the Democrat's fault.
Just ask DSR.
28 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterUm, the Democrats didn't have deficits under Clinton. They had a SURPLUS!!
Well, certainly the Democrats will run the tab up a lot faster than any Republican, but the whole problem starts with politicians who don't understand what the core values of government are, nor understand that every time they pass a tax increase or subsidy or vote to increase government aid, they're taking money out of the pockets of the people who earned it.
The Republicans came in and gave a Trillion Dollar tax cut, 80% of which went to only americans making more than a million dollars per year, and now you find yourselves in deficits again because you don't have enough revenue coming in anymore.
Explain to me again which of the two parties need to go back to economics 101?
**maybe it's not the parties that need to go back to school, perhaps its the voters.
28 Jul 08
Originally posted by uzlessThe problem isn't revenue, its proliferate spending. And the only reason Slick Willie had a surplus is because the Reagan Revolution changed the political culture in Washington, D.C.
Um, the Democrats didn't have deficits under Clinton. They had a SURPLUS!!
The Republicans came in and gave a Trillion Dollar tax cut, 80% of which went to only americans making more than a million dollars per year, and now you find yourselves in deficits again because you don't have enough revenue coming in anymore.
Explain to me again which of the t ...[text shortened]... 01?
**maybe it's not the parties that need to go back to school, perhaps its the voters.
Regarding your comment that "...the Republicans came in and gave a Trillion Dollar tax cut, 80% of which went to only americans making more than a million dollars per year," is incorrect:
IRS data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history:
* The top 1 percent of taxpayers, those who earn above $388,806, paid 40 percent of all income taxes in 2006, the highest share in at least 40 years.
* The top 10 percent in income, those earning more than $108,904, paid 71 percent.
* The top 50 percent in income paid 97.1 percent.
* Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9 percent of all income taxes.
And if you're worried about government revenue streams, you're more than welcome to pay over and above what the IRS says you owe. There's no law against this. Also, instead of incessantly attacking the rich and reciting class warfare mantras, perhaps you could redirect your efforts at the bottom half of U.S. earners who pay NO income tax.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html
28 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritterhahahaahhaahahaahahaaahahaahahaahhahahahahahaahahaha.
The problem isn't revenue, its proliferate spending. And the only reason Slick Willie had a surplus is because the Reagan Revolution changed the political culture in Washington, D.C.
Regarding your comment that "...the Republicans came in and gave a Trillion Dollar tax cut, 80% of which went to only americans making more than a million dollar ...[text shortened]... earners who pay NO income tax.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html
Where's telerion when you need him. You should read this article a bit more clearly.
The article specifically says rich people used to hide their money in tax shelters and with the reduction in the tax rate in capital gains and investments, it was no longer worth their time to HIDE their money from the IRS.
It's just a shell game. Instead of putting your money over here, now you put it over here. The government wins because now they are getting a portion of the cash instead of it going into tax shelters.
Good ol Wall Street Journal.....obfuscation at its finest!
28 Jul 08
1 edit
Just read the first chart about who benefited from the tax cut and by how much. You should note how much of the tax cut went to the top 20% and in particular the top 1%.
http://www.cbpp.org/8-25-04tax.htm
A more fair way would have been to give each American THE SAME amount of money back in tax cuts....much like they just did with the "economic stimulus" cheques they mailed out to everyone.
What I find amazing is that Americans would scream bloody murder if the government gave rich people a $40,000 "economic stimulus" cheque if the middle class only received a $900 cheque, yet they have NO PROBLEM giving the rich $40,000 in income tax refunds if they only get $900.
Stimulus cheques to help the economy must be equal amounts.
Tax reductions to help the economy must NOT be equal amounts.
Is that the logic you Americans use?
28 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterAs much as we all like to bag on politicians, I'm not sure that everything can be chalked up to their stupidity. Many of them are actually fairly bright. Some are even trying to do a good job (of course plenty are probably crooks too).
Well, certainly the Democrats will run the tab up a lot faster than any Republican, but the whole problem starts with politicians who don't understand what the core values of government are, nor understand that every time they pass a tax increase or subsidy or vote to increase government aid, they're taking money out of the pockets of the people who earned it.
I think there's a built in incentive problem that would tend to lead to repeated deficits and large debt. As a hypothetical, consider a politician who is not motivated primarily by extracting rents from office. Rather this politician just wants to make his voters happy and continue to be elected. Now one way to make his voters happy is to buy them things (i.e. targeted social programs) without increasing taxes on them. How can a government increase spending without raising taxes? Issue debt. Borrow the money; pay the voters; remain in office. Debt increases. Next period do it again. Debt increases. Repeat.
But who cares? The people (or at least the required majority) are happy. The politician is happy. Even the debt holders are happy (or else they wouldn't have purchased the debt in the first place). Seems like a free lunch.
Unfortunately, you can't keep rolling over debt forever. Somebody eventually has to pay. These unlucky ones are the future tax payers that are saddled with the high service payments on the debt.
The problem: these tax payers (or many of them) don't have a vote. Therefore the politician today doesn't really care to much about them.
Obviously, this has been simplified a bit. Some politicians do care at least a little about people outside his constituency. Some voters care enough about their distant progeny to vote against continually financing social spending with debt. But many others do not, and the system has a tendency to end up with large debts.
28 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionNo argument there.
As much as we all like to bag on politicians, I'm not sure that everything can be chalked up to their stupidity. Many of them are actually fairly bright. Some are even trying to do a good job (of course plenty are probably crooks too).
I think there's a built in incentive problem that would tend to lead to repeated deficits and large debt. As a hypoth h debt. But many others do not, and the system has a tendency to end up with large debts.
Where do you stand though on the revenue side of the argument? As I see it, the governments responsibility is to provide for its people..."for the people, by the people, etc"
To do this, the government takes its cue from the voters and decides what its citizens need in terms of services and then taxes its citizens an appropriate amount in order to deliver those services.
The Republicans seem to always get it backwards. They decide first how much money they are going to receive and then try to figure out how many services they can deliver with the available funds. Inevitably, they find there aren't enough funds available and therefore must issue debt in order to fund those services.
Now, guys like DSR say they should just cut the services and thus reduce the amount of funding needed, yet as i've demonstrated there is a core section of services that any modern civilization must deliver and the Republicans are finding out that, Oh my god, these things require alot of money!!
My question to Americans is that if the Republican party continually refuses to cut services in order to match their revenue and continually place your future generations into deeper debt as Telerion has illustrated, WHY DO YOU KEEP VOTING FOR THEM?? The Democrats have demonstrated that they can manage a simple balance sheet and not plunge the country into debt.
The Democrats are better at managing the money than the Republicans.
You basically have two options as an American when it comes to election time:
High Services with normal taxes and no debt
OR
High services with low taxes and HIGH debt.
Why do you guys choose the latter instead of the former??
28 Jul 08
Originally posted by uzlessI'll respond in a while. Gotta go do some things.
No argument there.
Where do you stand though on the revenue side of the argument? As I see it, the governments responsibility is to provide for its people..."for the people, by the people, etc"
To do this, the government takes its cue from the voters and decides what its citizens need in terms of services and then taxes its citizens an appropriate amou ...[text shortened]... with low taxes and HIGH debt.
Why do you guys choose the latter instead of the former??
28 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhat you're saying about Reagan and Clinton couldn't be further from the truth. Reagan was a con artist who plunged the country into debt with his huge military spending, and tried to hide it by cutting domestic infrastructure and paying lip service to "small government".
The problem isn't revenue, its proliferate spending. And the only reason Slick Willie had a surplus is because the Reagan Revolution changed the political culture in Washington, D.C.
Regarding your comment that "...the Republicans came in and gave a Trillion Dollar tax cut, 80% of which went to only americans making more than a million dollar ...[text shortened]... earners who pay NO income tax.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html
Here's that graph again:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Clinton decreased the national debt (as a proportion of GDP) largely by cutting Reagan's wasteful neoconservative military spending.
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by karnachzNormally I would not argue about that sort of analysis between ronnie and bubba, becuase I consider myself to be a lifetime supporter of the aussie labor party which by association makes me a card carrying liberal democrat.
What you're saying about Reagan and Clinton couldn't be further from the truth. ...
Clinton decreased the national debt (as a proportion of GDP) largely by cutting Reagan's wasteful neoconservative military spending.
But the problwm with spin is that the very macho strength that america exuded which encouraged her to name and shame evil and basically militaristically spending the ussr out of existence came at a price. And that price was not just small change for jelly beans or nancy's stargazing.
On the other hand from this same conservative perspective, it was Clintons scaling down of militarism that allowed america to become the sitting duck it was on 911.
dsr wants to beleive that the rich are paying more because the top one percent foot forty percent of the total, but what his spin does not explain is that the wealth distribution of america has changed and that the top one percent are worth a considerable lot more than they ever were and if that means their combined tax now is a greater proportion of the tax base it also indicates the increasingly lopsided distribution of wealth in the country.
It all depends on how you spin. Waco happened on Bubba's watch and that showed a disregard for bill of rights freedoms yet dubbyas resonse to the war on terror has invested even more power into the executive office to act against its citizens and at the same time normalized the notion that a civilized nation should have the right to entertain the option of torture when it deemed it a necesary strategy.
and it paid obescience to the beast whose wound was healed in the presence of the dragon.
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by uzlessIt should be clear from the comments that Americans put up with such travesty because even those smart enough to read the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times minimally understand what its saying, and have almost no clue about what it leaves out. Our politicians seem stupid until you compare them to the people they manipulate to get into office.
Seriously, why you do Americans still put up with this?
Rick Shenkman lays it out: http://hnn.us/HowStupidAreWe/book.html
31 Jul 08
Originally posted by WulebgrWell put. And long time no see!
It should be clear from the comments that Americans put up with such travesty because even those smart enough to read the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times minimally understand what its saying, and have almost no clue about what it leaves out. Our politicians seem stupid until you compare them to the people they manipulate to get into office.
Rick Shenkman lays it out: http://hnn.us/HowStupidAreWe/book.html