Here we go again...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I've gone over the supply-side hoax too many times already...

599480[/snapback]

 

I forgot, you're a socialist.

 

Want a good indicator of what big government and high taxes does to an economy? Looka t Western New York.

 

Hoax. What a joke.

[Stussy109]

I forgot, you're a socialist.

 

Want a good indicator of what big government and high taxes does to an economy? Looka t Western New York.

 

Hoax. What a joke.

599486[/snapback]

 

LOL, excellent point...

[Adam]

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...

599403[/snapback]

Actually from what I heard (and this is something I was told- no evidence), the deficit could be erased in 5 years by eliminating the tax cuts. If its that easy, what is there to be worried about.

 

The fact that we have been in a war overseas, and saw 2 terrible disasters in the last few years basically means we will be in a deficit.

[KRC]

Actually from what I heard (and this is something I was told- no evidence), the deficit could be erased in 5 years by eliminating the tax cuts.

599551[/snapback]

 

Instead of tax increases, if you cut spending by the same amount, how long would it take to erase the deficit?

[Adam]

Instead of tax increases, if you cut spending by the same amount, how long would it take to erase the deficit?

599554[/snapback]

Not a clue!

[KRC]

Not a clue!

599570[/snapback]

 

The reason why I ask is that people are too apt to increase taxes instead of addressing the real problem, which is out of control spending. Spending needs to be cut. The problem is that Congress does not have the spine to do it and the President does not have the spine to veto the budgets that contain deficits. They just play with the numbers to make things look better.

 

Tough choices need to be made and it is going to piss off a lot of people. Too bad. Spending needs to come down. We need to stop increasing taxes in an attempt to cover up the problem.

[EC-Bills]

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]

 

Okay let's see if I get this straight here: Rightie's say Reagan was responsible for the economy boom in the 80's, but say Clinton was not responsible for the economic boom in the 90's. Lefties will say the opposite

 

Last time I checked, the actions of the chairman of the fed reserve have more of an impact on the ecomomy as opposed to the particular economic philosophy the presidental incumbent may or may not have.

 

In Carter's term, he appointed Paul Volcker to deal with the inflation issue (which started under LBJ). Volker pretty much got it under control into Reagan's first term. After that, Volker cut interest rates to release money into the economy and then boom, things took off. But like any cylcle, what goes up must come down. Greenspan got things under control and then things took off under Clinton's terms.

 

So tell me again, how the president is responsible for an economy?

[KRC]

Okay let's see if I get this straight here:  Rightie's say Reagan was responsible for the economy boom in the 80's, but say Clinton was not responsible for the economic  boom in the 90's.  Lefties will say the opposite

 

Last time I checked, the actions of the chairman of the fed reserve have more of an impact on the ecomomy as opposed to the particular economic philosophy the presidental incumbent may or may not have.

 

In Carter's term, he appointed Paul Volcker to deal with the inflation issue (which started under LBJ).  Volker pretty much got it under control into Reagan's first term.  After that, Volker cut interest rates to release money into the economy and then boom, things took off.  But like any cylcle, what goes up must come down. Greenspan got things under control and then things took off under Clinton's terms.

 

So tell me again, how the president is responsible for an economy?

599583[/snapback]

 

Give that man a prize!!

[Scraps]

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]

 

I used to believe all that but I'm not so sure anymore. What happens when the economy overheats and the Fed takes all that money out of the system by raising interest rates? Perhaps its a zero sum game.

[sweet baboo]

amusing quotes from fark forums

 

Even with the cutting Bush's '06 Education budget is 59% higher then Bill Clinton's '99 Education budget

 

59% increase in spending in 7 years. Yeah, this administration is just KILLING education. If this was a Democratic

President he would be labeled the "Education President".

 

It is pretty funny. Conservatives are pissed because he is spending more, not less, on education. Liberals are pissed

because they THINK he is spending less, even though he is not.

 

 

this is all in response to another celebrity opening their big mouths when they don't fully understand what's going on

 

Moby STFU

[Adam]

Okay let's see if I get this straight here:  Rightie's say Reagan was responsible for the economy boom in the 80's, but say Clinton was not responsible for the economic  boom in the 90's.  Lefties will say the opposite

 

Last time I checked, the actions of the chairman of the fed reserve have more of an impact on the ecomomy as opposed to the particular economic philosophy the presidental incumbent may or may not have.

 

In Carter's term, he appointed Paul Volcker to deal with the inflation issue (which started under LBJ).  Volker pretty much got it under control into Reagan's first term.  After that, Volker cut interest rates to release money into the economy and then boom, things took off.  But like any cylcle, what goes up must come down. Greenspan got things under control and then things took off under Clinton's terms.

 

So tell me again, how the president is responsible for an economy?

599583[/snapback]

Maybe its just a case of nobody wants to be happy about anything.

[TPS]

I forgot, you're a socialist.

 

Want a good indicator of what big government and high taxes does to an economy? Looka t Western New York.

 

Hoax. What a joke.

599486[/snapback]

 

And I forgot you're an idiot.

 

If you paid attention you'd realize that I've constantly stated the need to cut government. One of the main differences I have with you, as I recall, I'm for cutting waste in every aspect of government--defense, security, and social programs. You believe it's ok that the Pentagon can't figure out where $1 trillion went; I don't. Homeland security is one huge bureaucratic mess. If they can't get a natural disaster right, imagine how bad they'll be when AQ manages to pull off a WMD here?

 

As far as Supply-side goes, I've disputed their claims here for about the past 10 years. The data do not support the theory--and it is only a theory. If there is an impact on growth from cutting marginal tax rates, the impact itself is only marginal--that is, the growth impact is not significant enough to generate greater tax revenues to offset the original cut, so you end up with deficits, even "in time."

 

That's why the largest deficits in history have occured when supply-side has been tried--under Reagan and Bush2. And those deficits were/are a consequence of both sides of the equation: inability to control spending AND decreased revenues as a share of GDP. The reason non-economists "believe" the SS religion is because you're told nominal tax revenues increased--nominal tax revenues (almost) always increase because nominal GDP is increasing.

 

Does that mean I'm against tax cuts? NO. The original point of this post was that Bush's budget is again spouting the SS religion. They claim it's fiscally responsible, and that the deficit will be halved; it won't. And I'll bet on it.

[Johnny Coli]

Here is a list of the proposed cuts and how much the savings are.

Programs Bush Wants to Cut or Kill

The "education" president left no child behind in his proposed cuts. Forty seven (43 to terminate and 4 to reduce) education related programs to be affected (Total Education effect: $3.4 billion), out of the 141 total programs he wants to eliminate/reduce. Guess how many energy programs get axed/reduced? Go on, guess. Six (3 to terminate, 3 to reduce) for a savings of $1 billion.

[GG]

Does that mean I'm against tax cuts? NO.

600207[/snapback]

 

It's the small incremental victories like these....

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I got a tax cut too. I guess that means I am rich. WOOHOO!! Time to retire! 

598701[/snapback]

I received a quarter, enough for a cup of coffee...but they increased my sales tax and the state had to find a back way of increasing my assessments to make up the difference...some tax break.

 

I would cut oil company tax breaks, and cut the $400 billion and rising estmiated giveaway to the medicare prescription drug company providers, who have raised prices anyway above the discount, so senior are actually paying more, we didn't get any return on the $400 billion.

 

Also, I would close the corporate tax loophole for companies incorporated offshore, then maybe I would actually get a significant real tax break.

 

Also, I would invoke a penalty tax on CEOs and upper management that get golden parachusetts when the companies they manage go under.

 

This is just a start, I am sure we could find some waste, fraud and abuse in the military.

 

P.S. I would require Haliburton to refund the Federal treasury every dollar given to them over the last 5 years, since they can't even manage to provide our troops with decent peanut butter and jelly or prison quality baloney and cheese sandwiches.

 

Then maybe, to budget would be in good enough condition to give my family a decent tax break.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I used to believe all that but I'm not so sure anymore.  What happens when the economy overheats and the Fed takes all that money out of the system by raising interest rates?  Perhaps its a zero sum game.

599674[/snapback]

 

Not totally zero sum, but you are getting there...Also, it really depends on how the overall package is stuctured, does it favor big corporations, capital investment or human resources, or individual investment and where are we in the business cycle.

 

Sometimes changing any one of these targets taxes can effectively help the economy, but only from a short-term perspective.

 

If tax breaks or increases could be one time events not expected with the ability to change them regularly then they could be effective. Permanent ones effect structure of the economy but little to meet short-term problems. Like bureacracies, they stagnate and folks adjust to them.

 

I.e., you are corret long-term tax breaks are a wash economically, except for the negative effect they have on the budget. Politically, they are very hard to change.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I received a quarter, enough for a cup of coffee...but they increased my sales tax and the state had to find a back way of increasing my assessments to make up the difference...some tax break.

 

I would cut oil company tax breaks, and cut the $400 billion and rising estmiated giveaway to the medicare prescription drug company providers, who have raised prices anyway above the discount, so senior are actually paying more, we didn't get any return on the $400 billion.

 

Also, I would close the corporate tax loophole for companies incorporated offshore, then maybe I would actually get a significant real tax break.

 

Also, I would invoke a penalty tax on CEOs and upper management that get golden parachusetts when the companies they manage go under.

 

This is just a start, I am sure we could find some waste, fraud and abuse in the military.

 

P.S.  I would require Haliburton to refund the Federal treasury every dollar given to them over the last 5 years, since they can't even manage to provide our troops with decent peanut butter and jelly or prison quality baloney and cheese sandwiches.

 

Then maybe, to budget would be in good enough condition to give my family a decent tax break.

600284[/snapback]

 

Waht do you make? $12 a year? I got a check for several hunderd dollars when the cuts began, and have gotten much larger returns each year thanks to the cuts.

 

But then again, I'm "Wealthy".

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I forgot, you're a socialist.

 

Want a good indicator of what big government and high taxes does to an economy? Looka t Western New York.

 

Hoax. What a joke.

599486[/snapback]

 

Western New York's problem isn't big government, it is a corrupt incompetent government. Kinda like the current federal administration.

 

However, I understand your frustration, NY has one of the highest property tax rates in the country, yet the funding doesn't seem to accomplish much. Buffalo has all the wonderful lake front property, but I understand the corruption is so great nobody is will to redevelop it, even though folks have made efforts.

 

Other cities have pulled it off with great success, even DC in Georgetown and San Antonio, Tx. Not areas known for their clean government.

 

Too easy to just blame big government, however, and big business may have created much of the problems with its hazardous waste dump sites all over downtown. Not sure I would want to test and clean up some of those piers.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

And I forgot you're an idiot.

 

I love you, man.

 

If you paid attention you'd realize that I've constantly stated the need to cut government.  One of the main differences I have with you, as I recall, I'm for cutting waste in every aspect of government--defense, security, and social programs.  You believe it's ok that the Pentagon can't figure out where $1 trillion went; I don't.  Homeland security is one huge bureaucratic mess.  If they can't get a natural disaster right, imagine how bad they'll be when AQ manages to pull off a WMD here?

 

Hey, I HATE governmental spending. I'm a libertarian, remember? Homeland Security is a mess of titanic proportions. The Pentagon burns through cash like it's going out of style.

 

But you have to make choices. The Federal government is going to be a behemoth whether I like it or not. I'd just like it to be a behemoth that is actually involved in the things it is CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED TO DO....like Defense, for instance. That instead of Social Security, Welfare or Education.

 

As far as Supply-side goes, I've disputed their claims here for about the past 10 years.  The data do not support the theory--and it is only a theory.  If there is an impact on growth from cutting marginal tax rates, the impact itself is only marginal--that is, the growth impact is not significant enough to generate greater tax revenues to offset the original cut, so you end up with deficits, even "in time."

 

Maybe if you approach economics as you do....from a Keynesian viewpoint. Not that I blame you for following this fallacious line of thinking, it's the opinion du jour of most economics professors, IMO.

 

That's why the largest deficits in history have occured when supply-side has been tried--under Reagan and Bush2.  And those deficits were/are a consequence of both sides of the equation: inability to control spending AND decreased revenues as a share of GDP.  The reason non-economists "believe" the SS religion is because you're told nominal tax revenues increased--nominal tax revenues (almost) always increase because nominal GDP is increasing. 

 

try again. When Reagan implemented his tax cuts, he did so despite a Democratic Congress that still wished to fully fund spending on social prgrams and that was intent on keeping the Federal Government FAT and INTRUSIVE.

 

If you cut taxes AND spending, you will annihilate the deficit. But let's just keep pretending that higher taxes are the answer.

 

 

Does that mean I'm against tax cuts? NO. The original point of this post was that Bush's budget is again spouting the SS religion.  They claim it's fiscally responsible, and that the deficit will be halved; it won't.  And I'll bet on it.

 

SS is a mess. If you're attempting to deny it, you're living in a fantasy world.

 

I don't know how old you are, but I'm not counting on it being around when I'm 65.

And that's in 33 short years. SS is THE number one Government spending item BY FAR...it outpaces the DoD by some 200 BILLION in the FY06 budget alone. And still, they think it's going to be solvent in the future?

 

Do the math.

[KRC]

P.S.  I would require Haliburton to refund the Federal treasury every dollar given to them over the last 5 years, since they can't even manage to provide our troops with decent peanut butter and jelly or prison quality baloney and cheese sandwiches.

600284[/snapback]

 

Why just five years? They have been getting no-bid contracts for far longer than that...or is this another one of those "history started January 2001" thingies?