Originally Posted By Shooba Gotta agree with this. Tax cuts are great if they can spur economic growth and all that - but you have to have an accompanying reduction in spending, within a reasonable time frame. <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/19/katrina.clinton/index.html" target="_blank">http://edition.cnn.com/2005/PO LITICS/09/19/katrina.clinton/index.html</a> I think it's very important that Americans understand... tax cuts are always popular, but about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I've gotten four tax cuts. They're responsible for this big structural deficit, and they're not going away, the deficits aren't." Clinton said America's deficit has forced the United States to borrow "money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts." "We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else."
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Well, since ol' Billy Bob has gotten 4 tax cuts recently, I think I have to agree. Let's increase the tax, but only on the rich and top 1 percent. I believe the arguement could be made that it would be silly to raise taxes on the poor and middle class. For that matter, let's raise taxes for lawmakers as a group. That way Billy can't complain. Just don't raise it on me. I am getting irritated at the Bush government simply because they have not effectively cut spending yet.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer We're going to have to pay for it at some point anyway, so we might as well pay for it now so we don't have to pay interest on it tomorrow. Bush spends money like a trust baby.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I am getting irritated at the Bush government simply because they have not effectively cut spending yet. << "Yet"?! You're still thinking that's ever gonna happen? I'll be surprised if they back off of the pledged additional cuts (inheritence / dividends).
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Actually, as much as it galls me to admit it, most of the decisions made to spend money are made by congress. But since they are GOP that means they are failing at the job they were elected to do. It irritates me beyond words that a GOP president combined with a GOP congress are incapable of cutting the federal budget. The Neo-Con GOP of today has failed thier mandate they were given. Personally, I could care less what they do with "morality" issues, what I care about is minimizing the bureaucracy. Instead the federal budget is ballooning and this is giving the DNC an opportunity to push for thier "Cure Of All Ills" - raising taxes. Even if you didn't realize Tom, you made a very valid point. Reaganomics only works if you slash the budget along with taxes.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Perhaps you missed last week's thread in which delay is now crowing about the magnificent job the GOP congress has done in cutting the budget ... >> House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget. <<
Originally Posted By ElKay Boy it's sooo strange that we haven't heard a dissenting view from our fellow Bush supporters on this topic. Instead of having a "tax and spend" Lefty Democrat as President, we instead have a "borrow and spend" neocon President who is all too willing to spend like a drunken sailor on an unnecessary war in Iraq and now to make whole an important Republican region of the country, but take out loans from the Chinese Central Bank to pay for his ambitious plan to rebuild the GOP South. Of course his daughters and his nephews and nieces are going to be OK, with their trust funds, what about the rest of the young people are they going to have to suffer because of Bush's resistance of following in Clinton's policy of pay-as-you-go?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Bush can't win with the left. He has given more to the poor than any president in history, yet he is still the devil to them. You are not going to find a Bush supporter anywhere who is thrilled with his spending. His ( congress also ) spending and his refusal to secure the border from illegals are two things that his base are not happy with. But,when ever a democrat brings this up I remind them that if they were somehow in power it would be worse. MUCH worse. << President who is all too willing to spend like a drunken sailor on an unnecessary war in Iraq >> I know it must be rough to have Saddam gone. But if the middle east was ever going to change he had to go Elkay. That is not unnecessary unless you are someone who thinks letting Saddam get WMD's was OK. Every report out there, after the invasion, says Saddam would have had them in a few short years. I'm talking nukes.
Originally Posted By Dirk_Diggler_65 Bush is already spending more than Clinton ever did on the poor. How about some facts: We'll begin by comparing the halfway point of President Clinton's tenure to the fifty yard line of the Bush administration. In 1996, the poverty level in the USA stood at 13.7%. In 2004, the poverty level was 12.7%, so Bush beats Clinton here by a full percentage point. To be fair, Clinton did bring the poverty rate down during his administration, while it has been rising slightly since 9/11. But at the halfway point, Bush wins. As far as entitlement spending on poverty programs is concerned, it isn't even close. In 1996, President Clinton signed a budget that directed 12.2% of spending be directed toward the poor. In 2004, Bush's budget kicked 2% more than Clinton to poverty programs, an astronomical $329 billion dollars. In fact, President Bush is spending more on poverty entitlement programs and education than any President in history. For a country that is often accused by leftwing loons of not caring about the poor, we are certainly putting up a good front. In 2006, almost $368 billion dollars will go for Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance, supplemental security income, child nutrition programs, earned income tax credits, welfare payments, child care payments, foster care and adoption assistance, and child health insurance payments to the states. The truth is that the working men and women of this country are providing the tightest safety net in history for the poor. And our private charitable donations rank first in the world as well. Source:<a href="http://www.billoreilly.com/site/product?pid=19120" target="_blank">http://www.billoreilly.com/sit e/product?pid=19120</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But,when ever a democrat brings this up I remind them that if they were somehow in power it would be worse. MUCH worse.> But isn't this just a knee-jerk response? In your own words, Bush is spending more on the poor than Clinton did. So how is it automatic that if a Democrat were president, it would be "worse" (by which I take it you mean "more spending on the poor.")? After all, taking the last two presidents into account, Bush is spending more. Why couldn't the next Dem. president, someone with a record of fiscal restraint like Bayh let's say, have a record of greater fiscal restraint than Bush? Obviously, he could.
Originally Posted By mnsharp I just think it is absolutely hilarious this arguement about tax cuts. If Bush cuts taxes - FOR EVERYONE - then it's only for the rich. If he raises taxes then he is an evil neocon that doesn't care about the people. For everyone in favor of tax hike on the "rich". GO TO FRANCE, go to any other SOCIALISTIC country out there and tell me how well it works. Raising taxes on just the rich is not capitalism, you penalize people for being successful. It's called SOCIALISM and it has never worked and it never will work, period. If Clinton is sooooo worried about tax cuts, why isn't he out there giving what he feels is his "fair share". Do you think he rejects the tax cuts that he feels he shouldn't be getting? Why do we have to listen to politicians like Kerry and Edwards who complain about tax cuts for the rich and then take advantage of every single loop hole that they help create, in order to keep their money from the government?!? Hey Shooba! If you don't want to take your tax cuts, you don't have to. You can give all that money to the government, they'll accept it. So until Clinton, Kerry and the rest of these corupt politicians stop preying on the poor and uneducated minds of those who think we should be socialists and start giving up their money, I don't want to hear them complain about "tax cuts for the rich". Besides, Clinton lied while he was being "interviewed". What program did Clinton have that was saving all the poor people that Bush came in and cut??? He is a proven liar and the shameful media just sits there while he lies and nods their heads like the puppets they are.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Well then maybe you can field this one - Where is the money for bush's announced gulf coast recovery effort going to come from? If you don't raise taxes, then the only alternative is to "borrow" the money - ie, drive up the deficit. Is that more fiscally responsible? How about the 'conservative' principle of paying your bills? The early estimates for the recovery plan are around $200 billion. What's your idea?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Where is the money for bush's announced gulf coast recovery effort going to come from?>> Cut some pork from the highway bill and STOP foreign aid for the next 2 years. That should about cover it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The highway bill? That ship done sailed. (And though the crew was bipartisan, Republicans were at the helm). Stop all foreign aid? Most of our foreign aid is military these days, and the Bush people will never go for that. How about a realistic proposal?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy How about canceling the billions we are giving Africa for a few years? Or Egypt, or even Israel. The highway bill has millions that could be cut even at this point... like the 250 million bridge that goes to an Island in Alaska that has 50 people living there.
Originally Posted By mnsharp <<How about the 'conservative' principle of paying your bills? The early estimates for the recovery plan are around $200 billion. What's your idea?>> You're 100% right, pay OUR bills. Borrowing is not the answer, nor is raising taxes. Here's one thought, why not make the people that live in flood zones at least somewhat responsible. These people in New Orleans think it's the federal governments job to protect them from hurricanes? Hmmm... I live below sea level, I know that a cat 5 storm WILL hit someday and the levee is only going to protect me against a cat 3, I have no way to leave or rebuild if something happens, I think I will just sit here and blame the federal government and expect them to bail me out. Does that make sense? First, the government needs and must help, but they should not have to shoulder the majority of the recovery. Second, when your car breaks down and you have to have it fixed, do you run out and demand more money from your employer? No, you budget. I agree that CONGRESS is not doing a very good job so far. They have to cut somewhere or they will have to borrow, simple as that. I'm an evil neocon conservative, so I will be very disappointed if the don't do huge budget cuts, beginning with the pork projects in the highway bill.
Originally Posted By kramer222 <<Do you think he rejects the tax cuts that he feels he shouldn't be getting?>> He actually, quite recently, said he didn't want a tax cut. <<...and STOP foreign aid for the next 2 years.>> Good idea. I don't believe Iraq wants to be aided, anyhow.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Ok, look, I despise the whole concept of raising taxes for anyone, as this just feeds the "machine". To date, nowhere have I seen the federal government give back any power, authoritiy or taxes which the people have allowed it to have. Proponents of big government just have to look at the glorious country of Germany to see how STIFLING big government is on the economy. But on the flip side of the coin, Iraq has been expensive. Bush has increased the federal budget, just as he did the Texas budget. Again, I am not a proponent of taxes, but this has to be paid for somewhere. If the neo-cons want to participate in Democratic Trotskyism, they better think of some way to pay for it. And for the record, 250 million for that bridge won't even cut a sliver out of the cost of Iraq and Katrina.
