[MAlan]

The history of debt and War in British and American history.
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1419

[Zimphire]

War and debt are strictly something that comes from the Bush administration.

Don't believe the lies!

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
War and debt are strictly something that comes from the Bush administration.

Don't believe the lies!

Is Zim's sig true? If so my job is done.

PEACE

I love you all.

[GG Allin]

Oh and... TAX REVOLT - PROTEST - STRIKE

Nothing happens without a little pain. Nothing will happen until the people make it happen. Republicans have divorced themselves from the ideals of Thomas Jefferson and the Democrats aren't much better.

Did you hear that "righties?" Dennis Miller and Al Franken are both delusional.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
War and debt are strictly something that comes from the Bush administration.

Of course not !! Just in more copious quantities than we've seen in a long time.

Do a little intarweb research. The debt really took off under Reagan (who simultaneously cut taxes and increased military spending). Since 1989 (first year of Bush I) until the present, the budget deficit has increased every single year that a Bush (1 or 2) has been in office and SHRUNK (or became a surplus) ever single year that a Democrat was in office (ie Clinton .. who I don't care for a lot).

Point is: conservatives love to label democrats as "Tax and Spend" liberals. The conservatives of the last 20+ years seem to have followed the philosophy of "Don't tax .. but spend anyway". Under Reagan and Bush I, Republicans liked to blame that darn "liberal congress". What's the explanation now ? Check out this graph ... since 1980, the only consistent deficit reductions happened when ? (During 8 years of "spend happy" Democratic Pres.)



Please put forth any evidence (hint: there is none) or any explanation for why so called "conservatives" are so much worse at balancing budgets -- even when they control congress as well. Oooh .. watch that wonderful surplus crash into red ink immediately after a "conservative" pres and congress take over.

[FeLiZeCaT]

There is profit.

The rest is categorized "externalities".

[Fanatic]

This chart is misleading if you are using to corellate the Bush administration with the defecit. What you need is additional line graphs illustrating spending as well as overall tax revenue. I posit that what you'll find is that the reason the deficit has returned is not due to spending, but lower tax revenue. So now the question is this: Is Bush's tax cuts the reason for the defecit. The average American would answer yes, but it is much more complicated. Bush's tax cuts were designed to stimulate the economy. Whether they have/will is up to debate, but they are not necessarily the CAUSE of the defecit. To determine this, we need to know, in no uncertain terms, how much tax revenue was lost due to lower capital gains taxes. The Clinton administration was very fortunate in that the stock market was roaring at the time. Keep in mind that most investors were making short term trades (i.e. 28% of their stock market gains went to the IRS). This stream of income disapeared when the 'bubble' bursted in 2000. Not only were people not making any money (and thus paying capital gains taxes), but they were losing money (and were able to write off $3K per year, with carryover to the next). So the stock market went from an IRS asset to an IRS debt, so to speak, right around the time that Bush took over. The amount of lost revenues was/is HUGE. I don't know the figures, but I have a feeling that these lost revenues dwarf those lost due to tax cuts.

So, Bush's administration may or may not be accountable for the defecit, but simply to show the budget on a timeline is not enough. That doesn't show anything, IMO.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
So, Bush's administration may or may not be accountable for the defecit, but simply to show the budget on a timeline is not enough. That doesn't show anything, IMO.

Tax cuts for country in debt don't make any sense in the first place. Tax cuts for a country at war are twice as stupid.

When someone say tax cuts will spur the economy what they mean is more money will now flow from the public to the top of corporations. I am a capitalist but this is all capitalist propaganda. Eventually there won't be any more taxes to cut. There won't be enough people paying taxes because there won't be enough jobs that pay a decent wage. Can't we all see down the road? Isn't it becoming obvious?

Nobody got a raise because of a tax cut. AFAIK nobody got a raise because of the airline bailout. This is corporate socialism not capitalism. The corporation has superceded the human. Humans are no longer important. Only short-term profits.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by GG Allin:

Nobody got a raise because of a tax cut. AFAIK nobody got a raise because of the airline bailout.

I agree with you for th emost part, but I will point out this: The Bush administration was fairly smart about the 2003 cuts.... Instead of having employers adjust their withholding tables in May (when the cuts were made), the withholding table were left intact. So, unless you went to your employer and raised the amount of your exemptions, you weren't realizing this tax cut.... until now. I just got done filing my taxes two nights ago, and I am getting roughly $500 more than I anticipated... If I were getting $15 more per paycheck, I wouldn't pay much attention to it... but getting it in one lump sum.... well that's got me considering buying my G5... something I wouldn't have done otherwise.... so it might help out in the long run... we shall see

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
so it might help out in the long run... we shall see

Sure, but what you are calling the long-run I see as the short-run. That $500 dollars toward a purchase of something you most likely don't need such as a new computer is $500 x millions that could have gone to people who need it etc. or to pay down the debt which is what the thread was about. The cycle of consumption of goods made in Taiwan will not, in the long-run, help the American economy. It may help Apple's profits for 2004 but what does it do for the American economy for the next 50 years?

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
Sure, but what you are calling the long-run I see as the short-run. That $500 dollars toward a purchase of something you most likely don't need such as a new computer is $500 x millions that could have gone to people who need it etc. or to pay down the debt which is what the thread was about. The cycle of consumption of goods made in Taiwan will not, in the long-run, help the American economy. It may help Apple's profits for 2004 but what does it do for the American economy for the next 50 years?

Please tell me you're kidding... I recommend you pick up a book about microeconomics before making any further comments. It is simple supply and demand. An increase in available funds leads to an increase in personal spending, which leads to 'corporate america' experiencing an increase in demand for their product, and an increase in revenue,which in turn the company invests in R&D, increased production, etc... you know, corporate greed. This is what we call "growth" and is what leads to the creation of more jobs.... which is good, right?

I was using a new Mac as an example, but since you want to go on the Taiwainese tangent, then I could just as easily say that the increase of Apple's profits would lead to Apple opening new Apple Stores, creating 10-15 (or however many) new jobs per store...

[thunderous_funker]

Except that the Bush tax cuts didn't put money in the hands of consumers. 88% of the country got $100 or less.

Instead, they put tens of thousands of dollars in the hands of elites in the hopes that they would do something with the money (invest, start businesses, hire employees, etc) that would help the economy.

They did. Except they did it in India, Taiwan, Indonesia, etc...

There are times and places when "encouraging investment" by dumping money on the top might be a sound strategy. But right now all the best investment opportunities are outside the country so that isn't the case. Wall Street gets a bump, but Main Street is still in the shytter.

Tax cuts qua tax cuts aren't the solution. It really does matter which taxes you cut. Bush cut the wrong taxes to create jobs. Well, jobs in America anyway.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
This chart is misleading if you are using to corellate the Bush administration with the defecit.

What? Man. That was the long way around to post something of such dubious merit.

A for effort, but dubious.

Lets simplifiy.

The deficit was A
Now it is B.
It was A before Bush took office.
The Bush administration has spent more than any other administration in US History. More than we have. They have also cut taxes. So. They cut revenue, but increased spending. Cut and spend = deficit.

I fail to see how your... uh... formula adds up.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Except that the Bush tax cuts didn't put money in the hands of consumers. 88% of the country got $100 or less.

How do you figure? I'm no where near "elite" and I don't have a very high income, yet I made out much better than $100. Where did you come up with your figures?

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

Tax cuts qua tax cuts aren't the solution. It really does matter which taxes you cut. Bush cut the wrong taxes to create jobs. Well, jobs in America anyway.

Which taxes should have been cut, and why?

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by maxelson:
What? Man. That was the long way around to post something of such dubious merit.

A for effort, but dubious.

Lets simplifiy.

The deficit was A
Now it is B.
It was A before Bush took office.
The Bush administration has spent more than any other administration in US History. More than we have. They have also cut taxes. So. They cut revenue, but increased spending. Cut and spend = deficit.

Because it happened on his watch it is his fault? It may very well be his fault, I'm not saying his administration could have done things in more efficient manner!!!! I'm simply saying that to imply that because it happened on his watch, it is his fault, is quite naive. It is much more complicated that that... I was also offering an opinion, which some economic principles.... not looking to pick a fight... but you took it upon yourself to be a dick:

Originally posted by maxelson:

I fail to see how your... uh... formula adds up.

[thunderous_funker]

I need to make a correction. That figure is prejection for the 2006 tax cuts, not the past cuts. I misread it. You can check it out in this report.

As for the effect of the past rounds of tax cuts, you can see an analysis here.

And even if lots of middle and lower class Americans got $500 back (which I think is questionable), that still doesn't factor in the hikes in state and local taxes, healthcare costs, tuition fees, and the massive cuts to essential social services.

Ask people in California or Oregon whose school districts closed early or are declaring bankrupcy how much that extra $500 is gonna help them.

And the increased deficit means that an even larger portion of the remaining tax revenue is spent on interest on debt, which means people are getting even less bang for their taxed buck.

As for which taxes I would have cut, I'm not convinced the situation required them at all. I'd have much rather seen a massive investment in early education, healthcare, adult job training and national infastructure projects.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
[B}
As for which taxes I would have cut, I'm not convinced the situation required them at all. I'd have much rather seen a massive investment in early education, healthcare, adult job training and national infastructure projects. [/B]

Nothing wrong with any of those investments... like I've stated before.... I'm not saying left this, right that, Bush this, Bush that.... I was simply trying to inject some economic logic into the equation that most people are either unaware of or conveniently forget.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And even if lots of middle and lower class Americans got $500 back (which I think is questionable), that still doesn't factor in the hikes in state and local taxes, healthcare costs, tuition fees, and the massive cuts to essential social services.

Check out this article from US News. Lays it all out pretty clearly:

You might want to relish that tax cut George Bush gave you last year--the one he argued in the State of the Union address last week should be made permanent.

That's because for all the dollars the feds are letting you keep, the states are scrambling to grab some of them right back with tax increases and a plethora of user fees and other levies designed to fill their bare coffers. States are in a fiscal bind partly because they raised their budgets in the 1990s to meet rising social needs, then saw revenue plummet. Most tie their income tax to the federal Internal Revenue Service filings. The combination of declining taxpayer income, new federal breaks, and often ill-advised state tax cuts caused a slash in revenue.

Facing yawning budget gaps--totaling about $200 billion over the past three years--state legislatures are trying to ease the revenue squeeze by disconnecting their tax rules from the federal system. That can mean denying on state individual and business returns the federal favors that Washington is bestowing on stock dividends, inherited estates, capital gains, and deductions.

[...]

Also on the upswing are sales taxes, fees, corporate levies, and assorted taxes for such things as hotel rooms, entertainment, and motor fuel. ...

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
As for which taxes I would have cut, I'm not convinced the situation required them at all. I'd have much rather seen a massive investment in early education, healthcare, adult job training and national infastructure projects.

Hmph. Liberal.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
Please tell me you're kidding... I recommend you pick up a book about microeconomics before making any further comments. It is simple supply and demand. An increase in available funds leads to an increase in personal spending, which leads to 'corporate america' experiencing an increase in demand for their product,

I could just as easily say that the increase of Apple's profits would lead to Apple opening new Apple Stores, creating 10-15 (or however many) new jobs per store...

I am not an economist therefore I am free of any narrow view of it. I recommend you pick up a book on anthropology before you call an economy simply supply and demand. Corporate America is a fraud. It exists to suck you dry, avoid taxes and take government subsidies. Jobs in sales are poor replacements for production. And I agree that Apple does some good things. That is why I don't fault you your taste in computers. However Macs used to be made in California. The only reason Apple needs stores of its own is because there are few real computer dealers anymore. Just mega-retailers. Again a poor substitute for mom&pop shops.

It all points to decay.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:

Hmph. Liberal.

Yeah dirty socialist. "Kill The Poor" DK

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by GG Allin:

It all points to decay.

Don't be too optomistic, now....

[itai195]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
I am not an economist therefore I am free of any narrow view of it. I recommend you pick up a book on anthropology before you call an economy simply supply and demand. Corporate America is a fraud. It exists to suck you dry, avoid taxes and take government subsidies.

Well, I guess we know what your opinion is

PowerMacs are still made in CA, BTW.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
Nothing wrong with any of those investments... like I've stated before.... I'm not saying left this, right that, Bush this, Bush that.... I was simply trying to inject some economic logic into the equation that most people are either unaware of or conveniently forget.

I don't think people are unaware or even forgetful of "trickle down" theory. In fact, I'm amazed at how many people still believe it despite its dubious track record.

Theoretically, we can agree that there is some logical basis for the idea--after all, investment does have wide-spread benefits. For me, the issue is more a question of are the marginal broad benefits of trickle down preferable to stuffing more dollars in the middle or even at the bottom?

I don't think they are. Especially not in the era of globalization.

[Fanatic]

Who said anything about trickle down economics?? I never made a mention of it? The ONLY argument I made was this:


The stock market bubble bursting in 2000 had a direct corellation to lower Tax revenues. Tax cut ALSO have a direct corellation to lower Tax revenues. I would like data to show which force had more of an impact.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
Who said anything about trickle down economics?? I never made a mention of it? The ONLY argument I made was this:

I took your little speech about personal spending resulting in broad reaching economic stimulus as an endorsement of the essential elements of supply side theory.

The president certainly invoked it when he labeled his package as a "job creation" measure. Give investors more money, they'll invest in things that create more jobs, rising tide....boats....God bless America.....and so on.



I'm saying that not only are the fundamental ideas somewhat dubious in practice (as demonstrated by decades of supply side policies and accelerated wealth disparity), but if the idea was even remotely useful, it would suggest we should be inserting the extra money much lower in the spending cycle than showering it on investors that are already hoarding or investing outside the country.

If I read too much into your comments, forgive me. I just figured that was basically where you were going.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by itai195:

PowerMacs are still made in CA, BTW.

Are they?

Can someone prove that?

No They're not. They are designed in California.

[itai195]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
Are they?

Can someone prove that?

No They're not. They are designed in California.

There's a factory in Elk Grove right outside Sacramento, I've been there!

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by itai195:
There's a factory in Elk Grove right outside Sacramento, I've been there!

Well that's cool I didn't know that. Still aren't most of Apple's products now made overseas?

[The Mick]

Not to throw fuel on the fire, but:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4098618/

How can you still say that it's not Bush's fault when he continues to spend money like mad while arguing for his earlier tax cuts to be made permanent? A $520 billion dollar deficit next year! What happened to the federal deficit being cut in half over the next 5 years as Bush claimed in the State Of The Union address? Face it, we are on a road towards financial ruin if this keeps up for much longer. One day the bubble will burst.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by The Mick:
How can you still say that it's not Bush's fault when he continues to spend money like mad while arguing for his earlier tax cuts to be made permanent?

Did I ever say that? Please quote me.

[itai195]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
Well that's cool I didn't know that. Still aren't most of Apple's products now made overseas?

Yes. But how are jobs in sales, engineering, marketing, etc poor replacements for manufacturing jobs?

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by itai195:
Yes. But how are jobs in sales, engineering, marketing, etc poor replacements for manufacturing jobs?

Hey I said/meant retail sales jobs. Low-pay. part-time? Bad benefits. Not stable. Corporate sales is another thing. As long as there is something to sell.

Remember I am generalizing. Engineering is great work but those are usually college educated. Marketing the same college.

Manufacturing jobs tend to be relatively well-paying stable blue-collar jobs. These jobs tend to support people who cannot afford college or have no desire to stay in school.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
Who said anything about trickle down economics?? I never made a mention of it? The ONLY argument I made was this:


The stock market bubble bursting in 2000 had a direct corellation to lower Tax revenues. Tax cut ALSO have a direct corellation to lower Tax revenues. I would like data to show which force had more of an impact.

I wish you had asked this 2 weeks ago when I had actually researched this at the Congressional Budget Office's website. I'll have to go back and recompile the numbers but what found was:
Average increase in federal budget year-over-year:
Under Clinton: 3.2%
Under Bush II: 5.7%
Someone had argued that the increases were necessary to rebuild a military that had been cut too much in the 90's. So I re-did the numbers, subtracting military expenditures from the total budget and came out with 4.x (I think it was 4.2%) in NON-MILITARY increases by Bush II on average. (It was definitely >4%)

I knew I shouldn't have trashed that info ... but if any of you punters are interested in re-figuring, I'll go out on a limb and say you'll find the numbers quoted above to be accurate.

Anyhoo .. the real issue (to me anyway) isn't absolute or percentage increases in spending ... its about paying for your spending (even if it means unpopular tax rates). If you gots the nutz to spend the money, you should have the nutz to actually collect the amount you need as well (or make the appropriate cuts, if you are conservatively inclined). I do concede that Bush II inherited a faltering economy (and he couldn't really control that) ... but drastic cuts in capital gains and tiny "throw the dog a bone" cuts for workers just worsened the problem -- all while increasing spending at a rate that would make a liberal proud. You're right that the graph I posted doesn't tell the whole story .. Clinton inherited a crappy economy as well ('92 - '94 were some pretty dark years as well, as those of us who graduated college around then can attest), yet still figured out a realistic budget/tax structure that resulted in a reduced deficit. All I can say to the myth that so-called conservatives are more fiscally responsible is WTF ?? . Their track record for the last 25 years has been nothing short of reckless.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by The Mick:
How can you still say that it's not Bush's fault when he continues to spend money like mad while arguing for his earlier tax cuts to be made permanent? A $520 billion dollar deficit next year! What happened to the federal deficit being cut in half over the next 5 years as Bush claimed in the State Of The Union address? Face it, we are on a road towards financial ruin if this keeps up for much longer. One day the bubble will burst.

The job of neo-cons is to bankrupt the federal government, strip it of social programs and leave everything up to the states. Who BTW will be powerless against the corprate juggernaut. Throw on top of that the WTO and neo-liberal trade agreements and it will be utter chaos. We will slide back to feudalism! It'll be awesome!

[saab95]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
Oh and... TAX REVOLT - PROTEST - STRIKE

Nothing happens without a little pain. Nothing will happen until the people make it happen. Republicans have divorced themselves from the ideals of Thomas Jefferson and the Democrats aren't much better.

Did you hear that "righties?" Dennis Miller and Al Franken are both delusional.

I strongly recommend the reading of that link. Paying off the national debt has strong consequences in terms of controlling inflation and the money supply.

I love the Mises site. One of my very favorites.

[The Mick]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
Did I ever say that? Please quote me.

I used the word "you" in a general sense, not aimed directly at you. Chill out.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by saab95:
I strongly recommend the reading of that link.

I did read the link. I am not against taxes. I am against the mis spending of taxes on things that do not benefit the people. And I am for paying the debt. I am against corporate tax-dodging parasites that have perpetuated and increased this debt.

If it takes drastic action to convince people (we all remember that the government is supposed to consist of and be for the people?) that the nation is in trouble then it takes drastic action. Obviously the way we have been proceeding the last century is not working. Unless the goal is the fall of America by decay from the inside out.

Ask a family farmer. If you can find one.

[tie]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
As for which taxes I would have cut, I'm not convinced the situation required them at all. I'd have much rather seen a massive investment in early education, healthcare, adult job training and national infastructure projects.

I like how massive spending increases are always styled as "investments." Sometimes that's true, sometimes not. If Bush were to candidly describe his economic policy, he'd probably describe it as investing in Halliburton and our country's deserving CEOs. In general, I'm against it all, with the current budget situation -- but if we must have Keynesian spending to boost the economy, make it short term to minimize the waste (so not healthcare).

The Atlantic Monthly has an interesting piece on taxes. The author suggests cutting regressive payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare), the largest taxes paid by most families. To encourage saving, have a progressive consumption tax (i.e. on the dollar amount spent over the year). Some of her other ideas are a bit wacky, but I think this could really work.

[thunderous_funker]

I recognize that "investment" is a congressional buzzword for spending, but in some instances I do believe the term fits since we can reasonably expect that spending to have very rewarding (and future cost saving) dividends.

Dr. Dean's very insightful early childhood development programs have done absolute wonders in Vermont. A tiny investment in community outreach for families with newborns has resulted in massive decreases in child abuse, teen drug use, drop outs and teen crime. All of those negatives are massively more expensive to deal with than the tiny preventative investment up front.

Even Dubya realizes the some jobs are never coming back so re-integrating those workers into the economy will require job training. I think his proposal is nothing more than a pathetic token gesture, but at least Rove detects the problem. Investing in re-tooling manufacturing workers in the rust belt so they can shift into new careers would not only reduce welfare rolls, crime, and all kinds of social ills (domestic violence, alcoholism, etc), but would grow the economy.

American infastructure is woefully outdated and precarious. Some estimates say we need a trillion dollars worth of work on road, rail, electricity transmission, and water works. That's a lot of jobs to be created as well as preventing future calamity.