Originally Posted By bboisvert <<Will they balance the budget by decreasing spending, or by increasing taxes? >> Or will they increase spending, increase the trade deficit and cut taxes on the rich in a time of war?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Some Democrats do too.>> <Please name some Democrat initiatives that will control the growth of entitlement spending or non-military discretionary spending.> With the Democrats controlling neither house, it's not their place to create such initiatives now - they don't have the votes to pass them. What we do know is that under the current GOP, both entitlement and discretionary spending have gone way up. For discretionary spending, we have "earmarks" that have gone up exponentially, corporate interests in some cases writing their own laws and getting huge breaks in exchange for campaign cash, and bridges to nowhere. For entitlements, we have a very poorly executed Medicare prescription plan that adds many many billions to our debt, while helping seniors only marginally. And which contains provisions - at the insistence of the pharmaceutical industry and their deep pockets - that the government can't even negotiate better prices for drugs using their bulk buying power (as the VA does). It's nuts. The current GOP has been the most fiscally irresponsible bunch in my lifetime. <<Even if one believes the cliche of "tax and spend," what's worse is "don't tax as much and still spend more.">> <Federal revenues are now higher than they were projected to be before the tax cuts. Tax cuts, done right, spur the economy, and result in little to no loss to revenue. Tax increases, conversely, almost never raise as much money as projected, because they depress economic activity.> I know that's your mantra, and you're a True Believer. But that nice theory simply hasn't always panned out in practice. We went through this months ago, and I showed the CBO numbers that showed that sometimes tax cuts worked as intended, at least for a while, and sometimes they simply did not. And sometimes tax increases are necessary if the deficits get too large - even Reagan realized that in '86. And, of course, our deficits now are huge, especially if you include the cost of the war (which Bush dishonestly doesn't include in the "official" deficit, but guess what - those hundreds of billions of dollars are coming from the taxpayers too). <<How about people from either party who pledge to balance the budget, eliminate earmarks (good luck with that one with the GOP), institute lobbying reform with teeth, and live within our means?>> <Will they balance the budget by decreasing spending, or by increasing taxes?> I'd favor some of the former AND some of the latter, especially on the people who received the lion's share of the recent tax cuts. Restoring the tax rates to where they were in the 90's - when both the economy as a whole and wealthy Americans did JUST FINE - is hardly a radical proposal. And bbiovert got the current GOP down pat.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Why does it seem like the only people who ever pay attention to what Moore says are conservatives?>> Funny, but the libs used Farenheit 9/11 as their main talking points for months on end, they even had him in the presidential box during their convention. Bin Laden and Saddam also use Michael Moore talking points against Bush. The libs must be so proud to parrot a fat loser like Moore, Saddam and Bin Laden.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <With the Democrats controlling neither house, it's not their place to create such initiatives now - they don't have the votes to pass them.> If they won't lay out their initiatives, why should people vote for them? Which Democrats are trying to limit the federal government, and how do you know? <We went through this months ago, and I showed the CBO numbers that showed that sometimes tax cuts worked as intended, at least for a while, and sometimes they simply did not.> Moreso the former than the latter. <And, of course, our deficits now are huge, especially if you include the cost of the war (which Bush dishonestly doesn't include in the "official" deficit, but guess what - those hundreds of billions of dollars are coming from the taxpayers too).> The costs of the war are included in the deficit. <I'd favor some of the former AND some of the latter, especially on the people who received the lion's share of the recent tax cuts.> One, the people who "received the lion's share of the recent tax cuts" where the people who pay the lion's share of taxes. Two, the percentage of the total tax they actually pay has gone up since the tax cuts. And three, you didn't answer the question.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<With the Democrats controlling neither house, it's not their place to create such initiatives now - they don't have the votes to pass them.>> <If they won't lay out their initiatives, why should people vote for them? Which Democrats are trying to limit the federal government, and how do you know?> I hope the Democrats take a play from the GOP handbook of 1994 and try to nationalize the election, coming up with something equivalent to the "contract with America." (Of course, we've seen that in a dozen years the people who said they were going to bring "integrity and honesty" back to Washington have done anything but that.) With gerrymandering being even tighter then 12 years ago and nearly all seats being safe, I don't know if that'll work for them, but I'd like to see it. And I'd like to see them put together a solid set of proposals. I saw some reports a few months ago that they were going to try this, but haven't heard anything since. <<We went through this months ago, and I showed the CBO numbers that showed that sometimes tax cuts worked as intended, at least for a while, and sometimes they simply did not.>> <Moreso the former than the latter.> No, actually more the latter than the former. Note that I'm not saying they NEVER work as intended, as that would be dishonest - I'd appreciate the same from you, since we did see those numbers some months ago, and it was tilted more to the latter than the former. <<And, of course, our deficits now are huge, especially if you include the cost of the war (which Bush dishonestly doesn't include in the "official" deficit, but guess what - those hundreds of billions of dollars are coming from the taxpayers too).>> <The costs of the war are included in the deficit.> <a href="http://www.nuvo.net/archive/2005/03/23/federal_budget_hits_indiana_hard.html" target="_blank">http://www.nuvo.net/archive/20 05/03/23/federal_budget_hits_indiana_hard.html</a> "With national security its No. 1 priority, the Bush Administration plans to continue dramatic increases in military funding. However, like previous years, the 2006 budget proposal includes no funding for the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Critics point out that when those figures are included, the president’s claims of fiscal responsibility and budget reduction are dubious at best." This is also about the 2006 budget: <a href="http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/benson020805.html" target="_blank">http://www.newhousenews.com/ar chive/benson020805.html</a> "Skewing reality even more is the fact that the budget does not account for the future costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the costs of Social Security reform, or those of major tax changes such as the adjustment Congress regularly makes to keep the alternative minimum tax from falling more heavily on the middle class as a result of inflation." <<I'd favor some of the former AND some of the latter, especially on the people who received the lion's share of the recent tax cuts.>> <One, the people who "received the lion's share of the recent tax cuts" where the people who pay the lion's share of taxes.> Well, sure. This is always the case, and should be. <Two, the percentage of the total tax they actually pay has gone up since the tax cuts.> Really? Did that change this year? Because it doesn't seem to be true as of 2004. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html</a> "The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent. Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent. " Looks like just the opposite of what you said. It might have changed in 2005 (I'd like to see the stats); if so, that's one year out of five. <And three, you didn't answer the question.> Sure I did. You posed it as an either/or question, which is a false choice. There's no reason they couldn't cut spending AND put the rates back where they were in the 90's.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I hope the Democrats take a play from the GOP handbook of 1994 and try to nationalize the election, coming up with something equivalent to the "contract with America."> I hope they do too, but in the meanwhile, it's a little dishonest to claim that some Democrats are trying to limit the spending of the federal government, when none seem to be on record as proposing anything that will do that. I suspect that if the Democrats do come up with an equivalent to the "Contract with America" it won't call for lowering federal spending. <Note that I'm not saying they NEVER work as intended, as that would be dishonest - I'd appreciate the same from you, since we did see those numbers some months ago, and it was tilted more to the latter than the former.> No, it wasn't. The tax cuts of Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush have all resulted in increases to the federal treasuries. Because the costs of futre spending in Iraq is not included in the President's initial budget proposal does not mean it's not included in the current deficit. <Looks like just the opposite of what you said.> Because those numbers include social security payments. I was talking about income tax payments. As the article later notes, "If Social Security, Medicare and other federal levies are excluded, the rich are paying a higher share of income taxes this year than they would have paid with no tax changes, the CBO found. If none of the tax cuts had passed, the top 20 percent would pay 78.4 percent of income taxes this year. Instead, they will pay 82.1 percent. In contrast, the middle-class share of income taxes dropped to 5.4 percent, from 6.4 percent if no tax cuts had passed." <You posed it as an either/or question, which is a false choice. There's no reason they couldn't cut spending AND put the rates back where they were in the 90's.> There's no reason they couldn't, but you answered with what you'd like to see, rather than what Democrats have proposed.
Originally Posted By basas Well folks- today is election day and Canadians are heading to the polls all day. For results, you can try CTV.ca, or CBC.ca later tonight. Let's hope for a Conservative government!
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "I like this bboisvert guy." So do I. I find he/she's got a pretty level head and sane arguments. As for this topic, it's so funny how everything always turns back to American politics...even in the Canadian election thread...sigh.
Originally Posted By basas <<As for this topic, it's so funny how everything always turns back to American politics...even in the Canadian election thread...sigh>> I know...I've tried!
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<"I like this bboisvert guy." So do I. I find he/she's got a pretty level head and sane arguments. >> Thanks. I take my inspiration from the many others with sane arguments on this site. Welcome aboard!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I hope the Democrats take a play from the GOP handbook of 1994 and try to nationalize the election, coming up with something equivalent to the "contract with America.">> <I hope they do too, but in the meanwhile, it's a little dishonest to claim that some Democrats are trying to limit the spending of the federal government, when none seem to be on record as proposing anything that will do that. I suspect that if the Democrats do come up with an equivalent to the "Contract with America" it won't call for lowering federal spending.> You can suspect all you want; the bottom line is this: when Democrats were in control of the House, federal spending was more restrained than it is today. <<Note that I'm not saying they NEVER work as intended, as that would be dishonest - I'd appreciate the same from you, since we did see those numbers some months ago, and it was tilted more to the latter than the former.>> <No, it wasn't. The tax cuts of Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush have all resulted in increases to the federal treasuries.> Yes, it was. When I found the figures and posted them, I remember thinking "I wonder if Doug will STILL claim after this that tax cuts always/usually result in increased revenue - hard to see how he could now. Although cherished beliefs die hard..." How right I was. <<Because the costs of futre spending in Iraq is not included in the President's initial budget proposal does not mean it's not included in the current deficit.>> I was looking at 2006 as the current deficit and, of course, when Bush presents the budgets he gives the numbers and projects a deficit of x-dollars. But those numbers don't include any war costs for 2006 and certainly there will be some, which will add to the deficit. <<Looks like just the opposite of what you said.>> <Because those numbers include social security payments. I was talking about income tax payments. As the article later notes, "If Social Security, Medicare and other federal levies are excluded, the rich are paying a higher share of income taxes this year than they would have paid with no tax changes, the CBO found. If none of the tax cuts had passed, the top 20 percent would pay 78.4 percent of income taxes this year. Instead, they will pay 82.1 percent. In contrast, the middle-class share of income taxes dropped to 5.4 percent, from 6.4 percent if no tax cuts had passed."> But that's disingenuous. In the real world, people pay FICA every week, as you know. Of course, over a certain level, the rich don't have to pay into it any more, which is why the numbers change. Most people, however, have to pay SS every week, and are probably little comforted by "because the rich don't have to pay SS after a certain point, their share of income tax went up, although their share of total taxes went down." And if you want to get technical, you claimed that "Two, the percentage of the total tax they actually pay has gone up since the tax cuts." I think most people include SS when thinking about their "total tax." <<You posed it as an either/or question, which is a false choice. There's no reason they couldn't cut spending AND put the rates back where they were in the 90's.>> <There's no reason they couldn't, but you answered with what you'd like to see, rather than what Democrats have proposed.> Your question was still a false choice, and it asked "would they..." Since I'm not a fortune teller, and they haven't in fact proposed anything as a party, I said what I'd prefer. But if and when they do propose something as a party, they could certainly include both.
Originally Posted By avromark Swinging back to Canada - as it is election night. I have just over an hour on the media outage in my area to find out whats happening but... I say lets abolish all parties and just get Hurricaine Hazel (Mayor of Missisauga Ontario) This senior citizen has had power for longer then i've been alive and she's free of corruption, she's loved by all (including those in surrounding cities), back in the early part of this century she recieved more ovations then the Queen of England (When she toured Canada)... Last year she was voted second best mayor in the world. <a href="http://www.citymayors.com/worldmayor/world_mayor05.html" target="_blank">http://www.citymayors.com/worl dmayor/world_mayor05.html</a> and her profile <a href="http://www.worldmayor.com/results05/profile_mccallion.html" target="_blank">http://www.worldmayor.com/resu lts05/profile_mccallion.html</a>
Originally Posted By cmpaley Hey, Mark. Been a long time...how've you been? I'm not very familiar with the parliamentary system as we have a "federalist" system here in the US. I here that there are some advantages to both but I don't know enough about the Parliamentary system to be able to say...
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You can suspect all you want; the bottom line is this: when Democrats were in control of the House, federal spending was more restrained than it is today.> Nonsense. As a percentage of GDP, federal spending is lower now than it's been in 40 years. <When I found the figures and posted them, I remember thinking "I wonder if Doug will STILL claim after this that tax cuts always/usually result in increased revenue - hard to see how he could now.> I still claim it because it's still true. I pointed out the problems with the numbers you posted. <I was looking at 2006 as the current deficit and, of course, when Bush presents the budgets he gives the numbers and projects a deficit of x-dollars.> That's only a projection. The current deficit is the one from 2005, now that all revenues and spending have been taken into account. <But that's disingenuous. In the real world, people pay FICA every week, as you know.> It's not disingenuous. We were talking about tax cuts, and there's only been tax cuts on income taxes. <Since I'm not a fortune teller, and they haven't in fact proposed anything as a party, I said what I'd prefer. But if and when they do propose something as a party, they could certainly include both.> They haven't proposed anything as a party, but many have proposed raising income taxes. I haven't heard any Democrat proposals for lowering spending.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You can suspect all you want; the bottom line is this: when Democrats were in control of the House, federal spending was more restrained than it is today.>> <Nonsense. As a percentage of GDP, federal spending is lower now than it's been in 40 years.> Really? This article from your friends at the Heritage Foundation doesn't think so: <a href="http://new.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm887.cfm" target="_blank">http://new.heritage.org/Resear ch/Budget/wm887.cfm</a> "By comparison, lawmakers in early 2001 inherited a leaner budget that, as a result of difficult decisions made by previous Congresses, had been pared down to 18.4 percent of GDP, and they promptly responded with across-the-board spending hikes that pushed spending all the way back to 20.2 percent of GDP by 2005." Sounds to me like they're saying it was at 18.4% in the 90's, and 20.2% now, no? <<When I found the figures and posted them, I remember thinking "I wonder if Doug will STILL claim after this that tax cuts always/usually result in increased revenue - hard to see how he could now.>> <I still claim it because it's still true.> LOL. <I pointed out the problems with the numbers you posted.> They were CBO numbers. And you tried to spin them, but that dog won't hunt. You can't point to good numbers after a tax cut and say "see!!" and then look at not-so-good numbers after a tax cut from the same source and say "there's a problem with that number." It's intellectually dishonest. <<I was looking at 2006 as the current deficit and, of course, when Bush presents the budgets he gives the numbers and projects a deficit of x-dollars.>> <That's only a projection. The current deficit is the one from 2005, now that all revenues and spending have been taken into account.> Okay, but what I said referred to 2006. <<But that's disingenuous. In the real world, people pay FICA every week, as you know.>> <It's not disingenuous. We were talking about tax cuts, and there's only been tax cuts on income taxes.> It's disingenuous because we were talking about the percentage of TAXES that people in various income groups paid. In the real world, for all BUT upper-upper income people (after a certain point), that includes SS. And the percentage of all taxes that middle class people paid rose, and the percentage that the wealthy paid lowered. <<Since I'm not a fortune teller, and they haven't in fact proposed anything as a party, I said what I'd prefer. But if and when they do propose something as a party, they could certainly include both.>> <They haven't proposed anything as a party, but many have proposed raising income taxes. I haven't heard any Democrat proposals for lowering spending.> We'll see what they come up with (if anything - I'm second to none in frustration with how wimpy they can be sometimes).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Sounds to me like they're saying it was at 18.4% in the 90's, and 20.2% now, no?> No, they're saying it was at 18.4 in 2001, after a Republican Congress had spent 5 years trying to lower it. In 1995, was at 20.7. In 1990, it was 21.8. <They were CBO numbers.> That's not how I remember it. I remember the author mentioning a bunch of assumptions and projections. <It's disingenuous because we were talking about the percentage of TAXES that people in various income groups paid.> That's disingenuous. The amount of benefit someone receives from Social Security is directly related to the amount of Social Security contributions they make. Social Security payments are not like income taxes. <We'll see what they come up with (if anything - I'm second to none in frustration with how wimpy they can be sometimes).> Sure. In the meantime, I'll continue to vote for the people who say they will try to keep federal spending in check.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Sounds to me like they're saying it was at 18.4% in the 90's, and 20.2% now, no?>> <No, they're saying it was at 18.4 in 2001, after a Republican Congress had spent 5 years trying to lower it. In 1995, was at 20.7. In 1990, it was 21.8.> My point was that if it was lower in 2001 (at the end of Clinton/GOP congress) than it is now under Bush, then your point that "As a percentage of GDP, federal spending is lower now than it's been in 40 years" is, quite simply, wrong. And Heritage was decrying the fact that it has gone up under Bush. <<They were CBO numbers.>> <That's not how I remember it. I remember the author mentioning a bunch of assumptions and projections.> You remember it wrong. The author talked about the numbers, but they weren't assumptions and projections. They were the actual CBO numbers, dating back to the 60's. <<It's disingenuous because we were talking about the percentage of TAXES that people in various income groups paid.>> <That's disingenuous. The amount of benefit someone receives from Social Security is directly related to the amount of Social Security contributions they make. Social Security payments are not like income taxes.> But, again, your statement was wrong. The percentage of TAXES paid by the wealthiest has gone down under Bush. <<We'll see what they come up with (if anything - I'm second to none in frustration with how wimpy they can be sometimes).>> <Sure. In the meantime, I'll continue to vote for the people who say they will try to keep federal spending in check.> Who say they will and then they won't? No thanks. I'd rather vote for a straight-talking guy who favors getting the tax rates back to where they were in the 90's and may or may not favor cutting spending (beyond the too-easy-to-say "cutting waste and pork" - they all say that) but is honest about it either way, than vote for a hypocrite.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <My point was that if it was lower in 2001 (at the end of Clinton/GOP congress) than it is now under Bush, then your point that "As a percentage of GDP, federal spending is lower now than it's been in 40 years" is, quite simply, wrong.> Well, you've got me there. The chart I was looking at only went to 2001, and I shouldn't have used it to represent "now". Mea culpa. Still, the percentage now is still lower than it was under the Democrat controlled Congresses of the 70's, 80's or 90's, and I don't hear any Democrats saying they'd like it to decrease. <You remember it wrong.> I trust my memory far more than yours. <But, again, your statement was wrong. The percentage of TAXES paid by the wealthiest has gone down under Bush.> Fine. I should have included the word "income" before taxes. <I'd rather vote for a straight-talking guy who favors getting the tax rates back to where they were in the 90's and may or may not favor cutting spending (beyond the too-easy-to-say "cutting waste and pork" - they all say that) but is honest about it either way, than vote for a hypocrite.> Higher tax rates are bad for the economy, and it's not hypocritical to say you're going to try something and not succeed. I've haven't seen any evidence that Democrats, in general, are more honest than Republicans. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true. If I remember right, the last Democrat that was elected President promised he was going to cut taxes, and instead raised them.
