The US economy and politics

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Tireur

I am. And trust me, the government gets it's cut, more than they ever got during Carter or Clinton. Not counting sales taxes, or yes, lets count them, I (and my wife) paid a total of app. $53,000.00 in taxes last year.

I could use a break.

Well, that's exactly one of the problem's with Bush's "tax cut." You aren't the one getting the break!
And sure I pay out my share in taxes. That's not what I was talking about. My economic growth has slowed considerably, not the rate at which I pay taxes. That's still chugging away any gains I do make year to year.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by The0ne

Yes it could be payed off, but the Executive branch is the people who do that sort of thing (read the Bush administration).

On the contrary, Congress writes the budget and decides what money goes where. The Executive branch make request and recommendations.

Originally Posted by The0ne

The problem with American politics is our people, not the politicians.

Both share in the blame.

Originally Posted by The0ne

I completely agree with you, ...

Thanks!

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Rogue

What ever the date, 3 months of a presidency cannot make or break the economy. The economy was slowing at the end of the Clinton adm.

If the economy had skyrocketed rather than plummetted in March 2001, they would have taken credit for it. "Slowing" was not "big layoffs".

Sigh. remember those fools with "Dow 36000" ?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Rogue

The deficit is not the result of the tax cut. .

Oh, yes indeedy it is - not exclusively, of course, but to a very large extent. The claim has always been that lowered taxes would generate so much growth that net tax receipts would rise - but it didn't happen in Reagan's administration (big tax cut led right to big deficits) nor in the current administration. The math is all there should you just bother to check.

Originally Posted by Rogue

The deficit could be paid off if the politicians, both sides, wanted to pay it off.

With what money, pray tell? We *had* a surplus a few years ago. It got squandered.

Originally Posted by Rogue

The amount of gov waste is sickening. I'll not support them getting anymore money to waste, no matter who it comes from (even the evil rich).

Oh come on - let's stop with the silly cliches. The vast majority of the cost of the government is not due to waste. It's there, but the idea that our deficit (which we didnt have a few years ago) is due to some unspecified but enormous "waste" is simply ridiculous. Or, are you claiming that the Federal Government suddenly became more wasteful since Bush took office and inherited a surplus that he blew?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Everyone who pays taxes got a tax break. Is it because the "evil rich" got one too that bothers people?

What bothers people is that the % burden of running the government has shifted more to middle class. I'll explain (again) later.

Originally Posted by Rogue

I purchased a new oven with my and my wifes paultry sum. Yep stuck it right back into the economy.

Good for you.

Originally Posted by Rogue

A state problem not a federal problem. Don't like your state raising taxes? Vote for someone who is against it.

I already explained this one: if the federal government is providing financial support for local roads, police, teachers, bridges &etc through one grant or another, then what do you propose is the alternative when those funds get withdrawn? The choices are (a) raise taxes and fees, (b) float bonds (which get paid for eventually anyhow through tax dollars), or (c) reduce services. We're not talking about luxuries here, a cavalier "fire the bastards" is simply foolish.

Originally Posted by Rogue

I don't believe there has been any reduction in federal spending on services. Maybe the growth was reduced but not any actual reduction of total funds.

No, many programs had very substantial cuts in funds. One that comes to mind, IIRC, is that Bush cut the mine safety funding just after visiting the survivors of a mining accident (who were alive largely because of the mine safety programs we was cutting). Little ironies of life.

Originally Posted by Rogue

The tax cuts didn't cause the deficit. War on terror and pork spending by both parties.

There is pork - and it is bilateral, but with both houses controlled by Republicans, they've been the greediest pigs at the trough *this* cycle.

Originally Posted by Rogue

Hey, if getting to keep more (not less) of MY money is a burden, I'll take it.

No doubt - however, the tax burden is shifting towards you (unless you're fabulously rich) due to Social Security and Alternative Minimum Tax. I'll elaborate when I get some free time. It's NOT suitable material for a quick sound-bite

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by jeff

If the economy had skyrocketed rather than plummetted in March 2001, they would have taken credit for it. "Slowing" was not "big layoffs".

Sigh. remember those fools with "Dow 36000" ?

Sure they would. Like Clinton took credit for his being elected as the economy was improving.
Politicians will be politicians and they are forever going to try to take the credit for the good and place blame for the bad. We as honest people should see through that, and not make those false claims the reason for our support.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by jeff

Reagan's administration (big tax cut led right to big deficits) nor in the current administration. The math is all there should you just bother to check.

Sorry Jeff, The Gov. DOUBLED their tax revenue 3 or so years after the Reagan tax cut. Same story after Kennedy's tax cut.

Originally Posted by jeff

With what money, pray tell? We *had* a surplus a few years ago. It got squandered.

Projected surplus, based on pre recession and pre 9/11 projections.

Originally Posted by jeff

Oh come on - let's stop with the silly cliches. The vast majority of the cost of the government is not due to waste. It's there, but the idea that our deficit (which we didnt have a few years ago) is due to some unspecified but enormous "waste" is simply ridiculous. Or, are you claiming that the Federal Government suddenly became more wasteful since Bush took office and inherited a surplus that he blew?

These guys seem to highlight both sides porkish ways.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer

[Tireur]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Projected surplus, based on pre recession and pre 9/11 projections.

And those projections were based on far longer term than normal.

Clinton's own people, I think Gergan was one, said the Clinton administration surplus projections were "way out there".

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Sorry Jeff, The Gov. DOUBLED their tax revenue 3 or so years after the Reagan tax cut. Same story after Kennedy's tax cut.

Baloney. We had such a large deficit after the Reagan tax cuts that we had to immediately have tax hikes to make up for them. We called them "revenue enhancements", but that was a euphemism. A difference between Reagan and Bush is that, when tax cuts caused deficits, Reagan allowed (reluctantly, of course) tax increases to fix them.

Originally Posted by Rogue

Projected surplus, based on pre recession and pre 9/11 projections.

Wrong. Our balance sheets had black ink, not red, and real bucks. It wasn't a projection of future black ink that might happen.

Originally Posted by Rogue

These guys seem to highlight both sides porkish ways.

Pork isn't kosher, no matter who is serving it.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by jeff

Baloney. We had such a large deficit after the Reagan tax cuts that we had to immediately have tax hikes to make up for them. We called them "revenue enhancements", but that was a euphemism. A difference between Reagan and Bush is that, when tax cuts caused deficits, Reagan allowed (reluctantly, of course) tax increases to fix them.

There was a deficit, but the fact is the revenue did double. Congress attached pork to the bills whose main funtion was fighting the cold war, much like today.
Tax cuts don't cause deficits, overspending does.

Originally Posted by jeff

Wrong. Our balance sheets had black ink, not red, and real bucks. It wasn't a projection of future black ink that might happen.

Yes, it was.

Originally Posted by jeff

Pork isn't kosher, no matter who is serving it.

Agreed

[jeff]

I can look it up - but I don't think those are the facts. And tax cuts do cause deficits when spending are not reduced to compensate. "Overspending" pre-judges whether the spending is legit or not. Did the entire Federal government suddenly become a trillion dollars more wasteful under Bush than under Clinton? No - there were massive tax cuts AND massive spending increases. Not a good recipe for balancing the books

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

So the Fact that he "promised" 300,000 new jobs per month to gather support for his tax cuts doesn't demand a certain amount of culpability for failure?

Can we expect the same sour question if President Kerry fails to "create 10 million new jobs"? Color me dubious...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

it really strikes me how the right wingers have touted tax cuts, especially tax cuts on the rich, as the panacea for any and all economic ills.

Or perhaps the prescription they really feel would be best is smaller government and lower spending? And since that's not ever going to happen as long as the revenue keeps rolling in to Washington, maybe tax cuts are really a way to 'cut Washington's allowance'?

the answer always was "cut taxes".

Horrors. The very idea of letting people keep their own money, why, how DARE they?

When the carnival barker is pushing the same patent medicine at your regardless of the ailment, you can be sure that it's snake oil.

Or, "That is never too often repeated which is never sufficiently learned"?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Tireur

Couldn't you say everyone, at least who pays taxes, would be a "direct beneficiary" of a tax cut?

And indirect to boot.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

First, these tax cuts (certainly as enacted by the current administration) disproportiionately tilt benefits towards the extremely wealthy

I'll bet you mutter this in your sleep...

(tax cuts could have been structured to provide middle class relief

Right. Now define "middle class", please.

Second, there's the effect on state and local taxes I've noted elsewhere.

You can "note" imaginary effects all you want, but it doesn't conjure them into reality, you know.

Third, there is defunding of services which the non-rich depend on more than the rich.

Which ones?

Fourth, the tax cuts we've had have also been funded by issuing debt, so the debt service will have to be paid for in future.

And your point, speaking as a man who has obviously never owed a penny for any reason---right?---would be?

So sure - every middle class or working class tax payer gets their pittance of a tax cut, while the burden of supporting government is shifted more onto their shoulders.

Fact, or merely cherished belief?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Who's better off (economically) today than they were three years or more ago?

I'm much better off. Bet you're not surprised.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Rogue

I purchased a new oven with my and my wifes paultry sum. Yep stuck it right back into the economy.

Tsk! How could you, you selfish person, you? Don't you know that some deserving Congressman could have paid for 1 night at a 5-star hotel on one of his junkets with that money? Or funded a couple of hours of a study into why prison inmates want to escape? Or enabled a ham-sculptor to take a limo to his latest opening? Why should you get to spend the fruits of your own labor as YOU please, when your government knows best?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by The0ne

The Bush administration had something like 70% of the american people persuaded that Iraq was linked to terrorism.

I was in support of the Iraq war in the beginning. The president told me that there were WMDs in Iraq, and Iraq was aiding terrorists. Those reasons seem to point to the fact that Iraq was a threat to the USA. Somehow, their clear evidence got lost, and no WMDs have been found. It looks to me like they made it up, so I am not in support for the war or the Bush administration.

Yes, claiming that "They tricked me!" is much easier on the old ego than simply taking responsibility for ones own lapses of attention, I dareay.

Let me ask you something.

If you were so easily "gulled" by the current President---you know, he of the no discernible intelligence---what makes you so sure you aren't being gulled by those seeking his job now? You know, they of the high intellect and "nuanced" thinking?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Well, that's exactly one of the problem's with Bush's "tax cut." You aren't the one getting the break!

Pssst! If he paid that much in taxes, he's one of the wicked people Mr. Kerry plans to coerce into financing all of his planned new spending programs.
You know---the "wealthy"? ( Of course, I suspect that Tireur isn't exactly sailing his yacht around the Aegan sipping bubbly from the navels of supermodels, but still, he's in the crosshairs---and a lot of people just like him. )