RkFast Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I don't know about you, but I'm jetting out to the Hamptons this weekend! 598736[/snapback] Meet you there. Hey...I think I can write a book... "A Rich Guy Who Cant Afford to Buy a Three Bedroom House" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Wow, another worthless post by our good buddy Scraps... 599069[/snapback] Well at least it was on topic. You might want to try it some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Meet you there. Hey...I think I can write a book... "A Rich Guy Who Cant Afford to Buy a Three Bedroom House" 599121[/snapback] Too late, I already wrote it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I don't know about you, but I'm jetting out to the Hamptons this weekend! 598736[/snapback] Well, if that is all you can afford. Me, I plan on taking my private jet to Europe this weekend. Nice Valentine's Day present for the Mrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 What, exactly, would you cut in order to make the budget better? 598660[/snapback] That's obvious, they cut student loans . I still haven't gotten over last years transportation bill. I expect very little will end up getting cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I expect very little will end up getting cut. 599161[/snapback] Exactly. Congress cannot control itself, so the budget will dramatically increase before it is sent back to the President and of course, the President will just rubber-stamp it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 That's obvious, they cut student loans . I still haven't gotten over last years transportation bill. I expect very little will end up getting cut. 599161[/snapback] i'm not even going to get into this fully...student loans were not cut...there is more money available to students than ever...instead, the way loans are managed have been changed...rates are up however, thanks to ted kennedy and i forget her name senator in california as they wanted fixed rates...the only way to get fixed rates through the banks was to raise them slightly...thanks dems for all your help to the students Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 i'm not even going to get into this fully...student loans were not cut...there is more money available to students than ever...instead, the way loans are managed have been changed...rates are up however, thanks to ted kennedy and i forget her name senator in california as they wanted fixed rates...the only way to get fixed rates through the banks was to raise them slightly...thanks dems for all your help to the students 599176[/snapback] If you could provide a good link I would be appreciative. I want to see how a 12.7 billion dollars cut over four years doesn't place an increased burden on students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 If you could provide a good link I would be appreciative. I want to see how a 12.7 billion dollars cut over four years doesn't place an increased burden on students. 599200[/snapback] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11160479/ MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to domestic spending. Headlines all across the country today, the President planning to ask for $30 billion to $35 billion reductions in Medicare costs. And this headline: On Wednesday, the House approved $39 billion budget savings package. “The deepest cuts--$12.7 billion over five years—were exacted on the government’s student loan programs.” The President’s calling for more research, more investment, math, science. Why would you cut student loan programs? REP. BOEHNER: Tim, we didn’t. You know, I authored that section of—of the bill. We were able to expand benefits for students, higher loan limits, lower origination fees, and yet reform the program and take $12.7 billion from those private lenders who run the program. MR. RUSSERT: But kids may have to pay much higher interest rates. REP. BOEHNER: The agreement on the interest rates was agreed to in 2001 that, in July of this year, interest rate would go to 6.8 percent. I—I wanted to go with a variable rate over the next five years, but it was Senator Ted Kennedy, Congressman George Miller and others, all the student groups, who insisted on having a fixed rate. And the fact is we were able to expand benefits for students and reform the program and save $12.7 billion. And it’s exactly what the taxpayers expect—expect of us. We’re going to spend probably $10 billion more this year on student loans and, over the next five years, save this $12.7 billion. so basically, the government is saving money and the lenders are making less money...and the media is up in arms the lenders used to make a killing on loans...not anymore i might not have noticed this myself until the dean of engineering at UB brought this up to me after i questioned it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 WTF? Now people want the government to indemnify them against the impact of rising interest rates???? Either you pay a variable rate (that is currently increasing), or you agree to a higher fixed rate. What's the big mystery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 Thank you.Budget propaganda sure is fun though! 599027[/snapback] "The 2007 Budget builds on this success in reining in spending. Like last year, the 2007 Budget holds overall discretionary spending growth below the rate of inflation and again proposes a cut in non-security discretionary spending. The 2007 Budget also proposes major savings in or eliminations of 141 Federal programs, saving nearly $15 billion. " From our main propaganda unit: The White House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 "The 2007 Budget builds on this success in reining in spending. Like last year, the 2007 Budget holds overall discretionary spending growth below the rate of inflation and again proposes a cut in non-security discretionary spending. The 2007 Budget also proposes major savings in or eliminations of 141 Federal programs, saving nearly $15 billion. " From our main propaganda unit: The White House 599273[/snapback] so...what's your point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 so...what's your point 599322[/snapback] That the government should cut defense and Homeland Security. Didn't ANYONE read his original post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11160479/so basically, the government is saving money and the lenders are making less money...and the media is up in arms the lenders used to make a killing on loans...not anymore i might not have noticed this myself until the dean of engineering at UB brought this up to me after i questioned it 599232[/snapback] expand benefits in terms of loans while cutting grants by billions of dollars. If you get a chance check out Chronicle of Higher Ed. Jan 6, 2006. There is no online link, but it seems that while making more loans available at higher interest, there is less grant money available. There is no clear way to characterize this one way or another, for some students who qualify for more rigid categories of grants and loans they would be winners, I think generally there will be less money in terms of grants with more money for loans at higher interest,. BTW, Dick Cheney cast the winning vote on this, it was 51-50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 so...what's your point 599322[/snapback] Sorry, I was responding to the post that said they hadn't seen "cuts in spending" only a slowdown in the growth of spending. Guess I didn't the quote button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 That the government should cut defense and Homeland Security. Didn't ANYONE read his original post? 599351[/snapback] Actually, the original point was a little more elliptic: the Bush budget while claiming to be fiscally responsible, is not. Spending increases, offset by spending decreases, then throw in tax cuts. Same old deficit song. And when the next president is forced to clean up the mess created by Bush and the republican congress, the cacophony will begin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stussy109 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Tax cuts inject more money into the economy to be spent and taxed. The government makes money on the circulation of money, not taxes. Person A gets a tax cut of say $1,000 He then takes that $1,000 and buys an HDTV and direct TV system to watch his Bills games in HD. So He pays sales tax on the purchase, best buy pays income tax on the 300$ profit they make, Samsung has to produce an extra TV which then needs to be delivered. So income taxes from truck drivers income, taxes paid on the fuel to get it there, the best buy guy who sold it gets taxed on any commissions he made etc etc... So the circulation of money in the economy creates wealth for all, including the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 Tax cuts inject more money into the economy to be spent and taxed. The government makes money on the circulation of money, not taxes. Person A gets a tax cut of say $1,000 He then takes that $1,000 and buys an HDTV and direct TV system to watch his Bills games in HD. So He pays sales tax on the purchase, best buy pays income tax on the 300$ profit they make, Samsung has to produce an extra TV which then needs to be delivered. So income taxes from truck drivers income, taxes paid on the fuel to get it there, the best buy guy who sold it gets taxed on any commissions he made etc etc... So the circulation of money in the economy creates wealth for all, including the government. 599427[/snapback] Yes, I'm well aware of the multiplier effect. The real question is: if you cut taxes by $1,000, will that generate an increase in income large enough to generate an increase in tax revenue more than the $1,000 cut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Yes, I'm well aware of the multiplier effect. The real question is: if you cut taxes by $1,000, will that generate an increase in income large enough to generate an increase in tax revenue more than the $1,000 cut? 599460[/snapback] Perhaps not immediately, but in time it will. The Reagan tax cuts proved as much. Hasd his defense spending not been so obscene the 90s might have been twice as roaring as they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 Perhaps not immediately, but in time it will. The Reagan tax cuts proved as much. Hasd his defense spending not been so obscene the 90s might have been twice as roaring as they were. 599463[/snapback] Yes, they proved that tax cuts do lead to deficits. I've gone over the supply-side hoax too many times already... I do agree with one thing: in time, tax revenues will increase whether you cut, raise, or keep them constant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts