Originally Posted By Beaumandy Oh, they think I am evil all right. But one side is winning elections and another is not. There is a reason for this and being evil is not one of them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<<That would only affect the richest Americans>> <Great philosophy! Let's take from the rich.> Let's pay for the things that Americans continually say they want the government to provide; the military, education, medicare, infrastructure... you may or may not like one or more of those things, but the vast majority of Americans want them. But all that, and the other things government does has to be paid for. No one likes paying taxes, but everyone likes what taxes buy. Everyone wants government to cut out the pork (and despite what GOP leader DeLay says, there's plenty of it), but that's a different question. The problem now is that Bush is spending more across the board, even in discretionary spending, than Clinton ever did... PLUS he cut taxes. Thus you have these tremendous deficits, which are themselves a drag on the economy. The tax policy of the 90's - which hardly made us a socialist nation - was more fiscally prudent. Period.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The biggest problem with Hillary's plan was that it was neither fish nor fowl. It wasn't the most rational way, i.e. single payer. It tried to involve the current insurance companies in a big way, which wound up making it much more complex than it should have been. Harry Truman's proposals for national health care were more classically "socialist" than Hillary's were.
Originally Posted By mnsharp You are 100% correct about overspending, but again, the answer will never and has never ever been to raise taxes. Raising taxes has been proven to hurt tax receipts. The issue is, spend what you make. Just so you know what a vast majority probably thinks, the government has more than enough money to do what it needs to do. They have the money, the unwisely and foolishly spend it. Most politicians are guilty of this. Education should be provided, but it is ridiculous how they spend their money. Infrastructure needs to be built, but bridges to Alaskan islands? (just one example) Some benifits should be there for the less fortunate, but making money to have babies? How many people on these programs either a) actually need it or b) have done something to get off of it. Government waste is enormous, and the only way to pay for things we need, is to cut out the things we don't need. (especially nation healthcare, show one example where that has ever worked).
Originally Posted By mnsharp You think about government waste now, the more you give them, the more they will waste, proven fact!
Originally Posted By gadzuux But let's look at the most expensive item on the grocery list - the iraq war. Whether you're for it or against it, there's no question that it's a "war of choice" - or to use bush's term, a "preemptive war". Meaning we "chose" to attack to head off an iraqi attack on us. Since we all now know that iraq didn't have the capability or intent of attacking us, it was a bad choice. (Of course none of the dozen or so reasons given were the actual rationale, but nevermind that.) In the meantime the iraq war has taken on a reverence among it's supporters, as if we're doing the work of the angels over there. Ergo, it's completely off-limits when it comes to discussing the budget or the deficit. Instead of cutting back on dubious military adventuring, these same iraqi supporters immediately start looking at social programs - welfare, AFDC, food stamps, medicare. That's not reflective of my priorities. I'd rather that my tax dollars go towards the betterment of americans, instead of the destruction of middle easterns. There's your "waste" right there.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Gadzuux, the betterment of Iraqis directly effects our lives here in America.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <You are 100% correct about overspending, but again, the answer will never and has never ever been to raise taxes. Raising taxes has been proven to hurt tax receipts.> I know that's conservative boilerplate, but the fact it that it's not always so. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. I'll take the tax policy of the 90's (when we got rid of the deficit entirely) to that of today, thank you.
Originally Posted By mnsharp <<I'll take the tax policy of the 90's (when we got rid of the deficit entirely) to that of today, thank you.>> I don't think it is wise to base your tax position on a time when there is not peace to a time when our President did nothing to ensure peace, but then again, I guess Rwanda and Somolia (al queda claims responsiblity for Somolia)were good decisions. By the way, I'm talking about tax reciepts, not total budget. Like I said, with tax raises, tax reciepts go down, so how does raising taxes help?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I don't think it is wise to base your tax position on a time when there is not peace to a time when our President did nothing to ensure peace << Peace through war? Bush is now a "peace president"? How orwellian is that?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Peace through war? Bush is now a "peace president>> Without war there is no peace. I have a shirt that says peace through superior firepower!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<<I'll take the tax policy of the 90's (when we got rid of the deficit entirely) to that of today, thank you.>> <I don't think it is wise to base your tax position on a time when there is not peace to a time when our President did nothing to ensure peace, but then again, I guess Rwanda and Somolia (al queda claims responsiblity for Somolia)were good decisions.> That's a curious paragraph to me. But is does bring up another point: Bush is the first president ever I believe to cut taxes at a time of war. Not good fiscal policy. <By the way, I'm talking about tax reciepts, not total budget. Like I said, with tax raises, tax reciepts go down, so how does raising taxes help?> And like I said, that's a conservative point of faith, but it's not always true.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I'll take the tax policy of the 90's (when we got rid of the deficit entirely) to that of today, thank you. It wasn't the tax policy of the 90's that got rid of the deficit, it was the spending policy. The Republican controlled Congress just wouldn't let President Clinton spend as much as he wanted to. In fact, we didn't get rid of the deficit until after we cut the capital gains tax. <And like I said, that's a conservative point of faith, but it's not always true.> When hasn't it been true?
Originally Posted By mnsharp <<Peace through war? Bush is now a "peace president"? How orwellian is that?>> We could have another discussion about this, but not here. Just remember that if you call President Bush a war mongerer, you would have to call every President that acted in the same manner such, but most people forget history (or try to rewrite it) and therefor feel free to only attack in the here and now, diregarding the past and future. <<The Republican controlled Congress just wouldn't let President Clinton spend >> This is always lost in the media, but it is Congress that makes the budget, not the President. The Republican Congress is the one that eliminated the deficit. Also, take out the war, where would the deficit stand? My point is that sometimes when you have an unexpected expense, you may go red for a while, but you must then plan the future to get back in the black. If you actually take a look at the tax plan and budget plans for the President, you will see his plan for now AND for the future.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> The Republican Congress is the one that eliminated the deficit. << But it was a republican president AND congress that shot it into the stratosphere. GOP types have a dozen different ways to blithely dismiss the deficit, while at the same time trying to grab credit for the surplus. It's an appallingly irresponsible fiscal policy of 'borrow and spend' in order to create an illusion of prosperity - and it's damaging to our country now and in the long term future. From economist allan sloan - >> Can the federal government afford to pay $200 billion or so to repair the damage from Katrina? Of course not—but we're going to spend it anyway. So how are we going to get the money? We're going to borrow it, primarily from foreign lenders, such as the central banks of China and Japan. Borrowing is how we've been able to pay for the war in Iraq and cut taxes at the same time. And borrowing is how we'll pay for the additional tax cuts that Congress is likely to consider next month. The fact that Congress is preparing to cut a variety of taxes by up to $90 billion over five years at the same time Katrina is going to send spending to the moon is living proof of that. What are the government's priorities? Who can say, given that Congress is planning to help pay for those cuts by trimming social programs like Medicaid and food stamps by $35 billion over five years, even as President Bush is pledging to spend what it takes to help poor people affected by Katrina. No, I'm not making this up. These tax cuts, called for in the congressional budget adopted this spring, were supposed to be considered by Congress last week under the budget reconciliation process. Even though that's now been deferred to next month, Senate budget committee chairman Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire, told me in an interview that the tax cuts and social spending reductions are still on track. Raising taxes—or letting tax cuts expire on schedule in future years—isn't on the table, he said. Borrowing endlessly for Katrina and Iraq and tax cuts and Homeland Security is possible only because foreigners are willing to keep buying U.S. Treasury securities despite the relatively low interest rates they pay. At least for now. The cost of hocking ourselves to the eyeballs shows up in the line of the federal budget that says how much interest we're paying. Interest will run about $350 billion in the current fiscal year, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It rises to $385 billion next year, $426 billion the year after and so on. This is without Katrina. Just the interest on Katrina—call it 4 percent on $200 billion—is $8 billion a year. While $8 billion is trivial in a world of $2 trillion federal budgets, it's still $40 billion over five years. That's more than the aforementioned $35 billion of social-spending cuts would save. Households—and even states and cities—have to prove to lenders that they can afford to borrow. But for Uncle Sam, who borrows in dollars and can print as many dollars of Treasury securities as he wants, it's always let the good times roll. Or the bad times. Just keep on spending and borrowing, because at least for now, there's no limit to the debt that Uncle Sam can rack up with foreign and U.S. lenders. Congress has already authorized $62 billion in Katrina spending and about $8 billion in Katrina-oriented tax cuts for the Gulf Coast. However, almost none of this will show up in the federal budget until 2006—in Washington, the year 2006 starts this Oct. 1. What will the new math look like? Before Katrina, the Congressional Budget Office projected a $503 billion deficit for 2006. That becomes about $540 billion when you make some realistic spending and tax adjustments. Toss in $160 billion for Katrina, and you're looking at a $700 billion deficit. About a quarter of it is interest the government pays to federal trust funds by giving them Treasury IOUs rather than cash. These include the Social Security trust fund ($97 billion) and federal-employee pension funds and such ($70 billion). Uncle Sam will need to borrow cash—call it $500 billion—to cover the rest of the shortfall. Most of it will come from foreigners. One day, we'll have one Katrina—or one other unexpected problem—too many. We'll finally spook the financial markets on which we're now so dependent. Federal borrowing costs will rise, the economy will tank, we'll all be hurt. Instead of a "perfect storm" of the physical variety, we'll have one of the financial variety. And like Katrina, it's going to be devastating. << <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9377813/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/93 77813/</a>
Originally Posted By mnsharp Here is the solution then, don't give money to Katrina, we don't have it.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0</a>,2933,170473,00.html >>President Lyndon Johnson in 1968 asked Congress to enact a one-year 10 percent income tax surcharge to help pay for the cost of the Vietnam War. Congress agreed and I remember going to the bottom line on my tax return for that year and adding an additional 10 percent. It seemed like the patriotic thing to do. Congress could enact a one-time 10 percent tax surcharge (effective for tax year 2005) on all personal and corporate income taxes to help defray the cost of President Bush’s Katrina program. Current Congressional Budget Office projections for 2006 are that the Federal Government will collect $1,013 billion in individual tax revenues and $258 billion in corporate tax revenues for a total of $1,271 billion in total revenue. Ten percent of this would be $127 billion. Thus a 10 percent surcharge would pay for a little more than half of President Bush’s program. Such a surcharge would be a flat tax…everyone would pay the same rate, no matter how much they earned. Also, it would represent shared sacrifice and would not be a permanent tax increase, but only a temporary one brought about by a truly unusual event. Congress could then attempt to make budget cuts to come up with the other half of the cost of Katrina.<<
Originally Posted By mnsharp ^^makes me sick to my stomach just imagining that. If Bush proposed that, although I have always defended him, I would be the first in line at the pickets to oust him.
