Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will Bush's Successor Raise Taxes To Cut Deficit?  
User currently offlineBmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2277 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2868 times:

With the U.S. federal deficit around $500B, it seems Bush's successor will have no options but to substantially raise income taxes to reign in the deficit. Bush has said he'll refrain from tax increases as long as he's president.

The GOP says the deficit can be cut without tax increase, Dems say otherwise. Who's right?


The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
130 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLSPA From Switzerland, joined Jan 2006, 190 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2865 times:

no doubt in my mind. he HAS too if America wants to stay competitive. Americans live about 5 times over their heads!!!

It imports ALOT more than it exports so the balance of payment is WAAAY in the negative numbers.



~reach for the sky!
User currently offlineDarrenthe747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2860 times:

First of all the deficit is not $500B it's more like $6 trillion. I fail to see how the defecit can be dropped without raising taxes. It's $6 trillion for Christ sake. Obviously nobody will get elected (or re-elected) to office if they state publicly they will raise your taxes. It's sad though, our country can't sustain itself forever with this kind of radical spending. Politicians don't have the balls nowadays to do what needs to be done to make things right. If you are going to take the country to war you must raise the taxes to finance it. I used to like the Republican platform because they were all about small government and less spending. Now it has been hijacked by the Christian Coalition and they spend more than a communist dictator. Libertarian is the way to go now if you believe in small government and less spending.

User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2860 times:

And the Republicans will have a ready made grievance that's a perennial favorite in the hustings. I can hear Limbaugh already: "Tax and spend liberal homos marrying each other while our boys are dying in Iraq!"

Devilishly clever, if you get my drift. You make someone else clean up your mess and then you get to blame them for what it takes to clean up the mess.

I feel sorry for the poor mother fuckers who win the next election-it's going to be awful.


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2852 times:

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 2):
I fail to see how the defecit can be dropped without raising taxes.

I guess noone is concerned with the actual facts,

Since the Bush tax cuts went into effect, IRS revenue has INCREASED 13%.

Raising taxes would have the effect of lowering revenue, which is all that really matters.

Quoting LSPA (Reply 1):
It imports ALOT more than it exports so the balance of payment is WAAAY in the negative numbers.

With an 11 trillion + dollar economy how could we possibly export more than we import? Other than Japan, no country on Earth is even close to half our economies size.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17504 posts, RR: 45
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2847 times:

The problem is not the lowering of taxes--that is good. The problem is the concommittant complete lack of spending restraint. Spending needs to be cut, not the tax cuts. If anything taxes should be lowered, particularly corporate taxation since we are second highest behind Japan apparently.

Quoting LSPA (Reply 1):
he HAS too if America wants to stay competitive.

Only if America wants to stay competitive with the EU, ie, not competitive. Silly



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2828 times:

One thing that has always made me mad about the Republicans, especially those opposed to raising taxes, is their "support" for the on going war.

Who are the biggest cheerleaders for the GWOT, OIF and OEF? - The Republicans.

What is the chief argument of the Republicans on why the deficit is as high as it is? - We are fighting a global war and it is costing a lot of money.

What is the Republicans favorite catch phrase? - Support the troops.

I find it ironic that they search out every opportunity to tell us how much they support the troops... but as soon as you ask them to PAY for the war out of their pockets... oh! Wait one minute! Now you're going to far! We don't want to support the war effort with our own money! We just want to support the war effort with catch phrases!

If they truly supported the war, they would be willing to make personal sacrifices. They would place the outcome of the war over the bottom line in their bank accounts.

Hypocrites.

-UH60


User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2826 times:

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 2):
First of all the deficit is not $500B it's more like $6 trillion.

No, the deficit for this year is projected by the CBO be $337B.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...26/ap/business/mainD8FCF6SG0.shtml

Secondly the 6 trillion figure is the over all debt that this country owes. That will never go down as long as we have unrestrained entitlement spending.

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 2):
fail to see how the deficit can be dropped without raising taxes.

Try this visual.....



So raising taxes, as our former leader did, is not such a good thing after all.

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 2):
Obviously nobody will get elected (or re-elected) to office if they state publicly they will raise your taxes.

Thank God, and Walter Mondale, for that.

Quoting Darrenthe747 (Reply 2):
It's sad though, our country can't sustain itself forever with this kind of radical spending.

That is correct. People have to learn to take responsibility for themselves which is why the libertarian party will never take off in our life time.

Quoting LSPA (Reply 1):
It imports ALOT more than it exports so the balance of payment is WAAAY in the negative numbers.

Explain this to me. I spend money at the grocery store, locally owned, the doctors office, the dentist, and the barbers. I've just spent a lot of money. Now if all those people decide to fly another airline than I work for, how do I get my money back? Am I not in a trade deficit position with them all the time? And yet I seem to survive year to year.

And lets not forget, it is Congress which holds the purse strings. The President is limited to accepting or rejecting their budget and if he rejects it the Congress can still come back and override his veto. They also control the level of taxation as well.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2826 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 4):
Since the Bush tax cuts went into effect, IRS revenue has INCREASED 13%.

That's less than inflation.


Congress is obviously going to have to cut spending. Period.


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2821 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 7):

And your very impressive visual is nominal data,not real (ie after taking inflation into account)data.


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2813 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 8):
That's less than inflation.

WHAT? Are you serious? Even if that matched inflation - that figure would be extremely alarming! We havien't seen that level of inflation since the late 1970s.

No, current inflation levels, while edging higher, are still quite low. Check your numbers again.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 8):
Congress is obviously going to have to cut spending. Period.

   Agreed. And while it is more complicated than just simply cutting spending... it's a good start.

Quoting Donder10 (Reply 9):
And your very impressive visual is nominal data,not real (ie after taking inflation into account)data.

See above comment to MD90. The word "inflation" is misunderstood by most. Gilligan's chart spans a very short time period, and DOES show a dramatic increase. Inflation never came close to matching this rise. Charting inflation against another set of numbers usually does not work well with short time periods... but works better when you chart long periods of time.

Quoting LSPA (Reply 1):
no doubt in my mind. he HAS too if America wants to stay competitive. Americans live about 5 times over their heads!!!

It imports ALOT more than it exports so the balance of payment is WAAAY in the negative numbers.

Be careful here. The knee jerk reaction of "Trade deficits = bad" has been, for the most part, proven wrong by leading economists.

If you look back over the past 50yrs in the American economy, you find that periods of widening trade deficits accompany a boom in the national economy. During periods where the trade deficit shrank (or got "better") the national economy DECLINED.

Why? Well it's complicated, but basically without a trade deficit, Americans could not import the capital we need to finance the growth needed in the national economy.

A trade deficit, is not necessarily a bad thing. However, a SPENDING deficit is very much a bad thing. But the two should not be confused.

-UH60

[Edited 2006-07-06 17:16:26]

User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2806 times:

Quoting Donder10 (Reply 9):
And your very impressive visual is nominal data,not real (ie after taking inflation into account)data.

Ok, split the graph in two at May 2003. Prior to that date in which direction were tax reciepts headed? After May 2003? What happened to make the turnaround?

By the way, the growth is far out pacing inflation.


http://stats.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2798 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 8):
That's less than inflation.

You are not serious are you? Inflation has not been double digit since about 1980. Inflation hovers around 3-4% max.

In the last 10 years it has been no higher than 4.69&



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2796 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 4):
I guess noone is concerned with the actual facts,

Since the Bush tax cuts went into effect, IRS revenue has INCREASED 13%.

Raising taxes would have the effect of lowering revenue, which is all that really matters.



Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 5):
The problem is not the lowering of taxes--that is good. The problem is the concommittant complete lack of spending restraint. Spending needs to be cut, not the tax cuts. If anything taxes should be lowered, particularly corporate taxation since we are second highest behind Japan apparently.

 checkmark  to both of the above.

Back in the 90's (I'm not sure of the exact date), during a fiscal crisis, the democratic governor and legislature in California raised taxes, especially on the higher income brackets. The result? A net decrease in income tax revenue.

You'd think people would learn.....


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2796 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 12):
You are not serious are you? Inflation has not been double digit since about 1980. Inflation hovers around 3-4% max.

In the last 10 years it has been no higher than 4.69&

4% inflation in one year means:
8.2% over 2 years
12.5% over 3 years
17.0% over 4 years...


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2795 times:

How about we cut spending!!!

User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2794 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 13):
You'd think people would learn.....

I think the basic problem is the same at the household level as it is at the federal level, you get a raise, you tend to think abut what more you can buy instead of paying off debt.

The bottom line is fiscal restraint, raising taxes is not the answer.

How bout a Presidential line item veto? Cutting pork takes more than a knife, it takes a chainsaw.

Also, why do millionaires collect social security? Is means testing really all that bad?



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2794 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 16):
Also, why do millionaires collect social security? Is means testing really all that bad?

ALL federal entitlement programs ought to be means tested. That would, of course, require a backbone in Congress, which is, apparently, an unknown item on Capitol Hill.


User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2767 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 14):
4% inflation in one year means:
8.2% over 2 years
12.5% over 3 years
17.0% over 4 years...

Well if you live with a finite pie I guess your world looks that way. In the real world inflation is not static. It may be higher one year or lower the next. 1.8 to 2.2 is a 13% increase in two years, still way ahead of your finite version of inflation.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 16):
How bout a Presidential line item veto?

Unfortunately it has already been ruled unconstitutional by the SC.


User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2762 times:

Quoting Bmacleod (Thread starter):
With the U.S. federal deficit around $500B, it seems Bush's successor will have no options but to substantially raise income taxes to reign in the deficit. Bush has said he'll refrain from tax increases as long as he's president.

The GOP says the deficit can be cut without tax increase, Dems say otherwise. Who's right?

If it is a democrat, he will raise income taxes. If it is a Republican he will privatize army, navy and air-force.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2755 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 18):
Well if you live with a finite pie I guess your world looks that way. In the real world inflation is not static. It may be higher one year or lower the next. 1.8 to 2.2 is a 13% increase in two years, still way ahead of your finite version of inflation.

Percentages always requre proper identification of their basis value. I was merely reminding everyone that inflation accumulates by multiplication through multiple years.


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2755 times:

Ok, split the graph in two at May 2003. Prior to that date in which direction were tax reciepts headed? After May 2003? What happened to make the turnaround?


They increased largely because of a cyclical improvement in the economy's state.

Also,interestingly,currently (and possibly back then)profits are making up a much larger % of GDP than usual and this has led to an increase in revenue for the gvt from corporate profits.Don't get me wrong, the tax cuts implemented by Bush were needed at the time (around 2001 I think?)and helped to steady the ship but using that chart as proof of lowering taxes leading to increased government revenue is flawed.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6816 posts, RR: 34
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2752 times:

Quoting Bmacleod (Thread starter):
it seems Bush's successor will have no options but to substantially raise income taxes to reign in the deficit.

 redflag   redflag   redflag   redflag 

NO!!!

Read my lips: CUT FEDERAL SPENDING!!!!!!

Ole Jorge has spent like a drunken sailor...that can't continue. There's no difference between left and right in this regard. True conservative ideals have been betrayed by Bush 43. Just like his old man in raising taxes.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2743 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 17):
ALL federal entitlement programs ought to be means tested.

Have to disagree with you there. There should not be any federal entitlement programs. Why should anyone be entitled to any of my money. Let's get back to what our republic was meant to be - a limited federal government.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8507 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2735 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 10):
No, current inflation levels, while edging higher, are still quite low. Check your numbers again.

And the official, government-reported inflation rate conveniently leaves out "volatile" energy and food prices. Nope, we surely don't need those to survive, or that "volatile" usuall doesn't mean up and up and up.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 14):
12.5% over 3 years

Indeed.

The American dollar has lost 95% of its value since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. That ought to tell people something right there.


25 LTBEWR : During President Clinton's administration: Raised some income taxes, mainly on the rich early in his 1st term. We had a sustained excellent economy, i
26 Pope : The dust now having settled, it's well documented that the excellent economy was based on false accounting. Enron, Worldcom, HealthSouth, etc..... al
27 Post contains images KFLLCFII : Because they've been paying into it for as long as they've been paying an income tax, just like you and me. (And no, they shouldn't be forced to pay
28 Post contains images Gilligan : Then what happened to tax reciepts was also flawed in the Reagan administration. ??????? It was the largesttax raise ever, on everyone except the poo
29 DeltaDC9 : Wrong, NOT like you and me because we pay SS for every single dollar we earn, there is a cutoff for high income earners and after that point they pay
30 Falcon84 : They'll have no choice, if they want to be economically sound. Bush has spend us into oblivion, and unless we want to make the next 20 generations pay
31 DeltaDC9 : While I sort of agree with your assessment, it is Congress that holds the purse strings. The President cant spend money, only Congress can. They have
32 KFLLCFII : But nevertheless, they still contribute. Hence, they should be able to reap the benefits without being "means tested" out of it. Should they only rec
33 Gilligan : Taken from the Tip O'Neil book of quotes, of course totally untrue. Hmmmm...seem to remember old Tip and George Mitchell calling Reagan's budgets DOA
34 Falcon84 : How is it "artificial"? To get a surplus you make choices what to spend on. It wasn't artificial at all. It was real, just as real as Bush's spending
35 Gilligan : If, once again, you check the graph, since tax cuts have been in place tax receipts are on their way up. Prior to that we had two tax increases and a
36 Post contains images Halls120 : while the government portion of the late 90's economy was sound, the private sector portion was a house of cards, largely due to the lack of governme
37 MD-90 : The income tax dates to 1913, and SS only until...1933 or 1934? There might be some still alive who've been paying income taxes longer. Big deal. No
38 DeltaDC9 : No line item veto, they can attach as much prok as they want to bills that will certainly pass, or we would get nothing but vetos. If I come up short
39 SCCutler : Far be it for me to agree with Falcon, but this is my great disappointment with el Presidente Arbusto; just say no... once! To those who contend the
40 Post contains images Cfalk : This is where the Republican party has disappointed so much in recent years. They have abandoned their ideals of fiscal conservatism. Remember that d
41 Halls120 : The following article ought to gore at least two often heard liberal "truths" - that we need to increase taxes, and the rich don't pay their fair shar
42 UH60FtRucker : We all know that when it comes to financial spending... I'm one of the more conservative A.netters. But honestly... it's not so simple as "cut spendi
43 Cptkrell : UH60 is, of course, correct in his analyzation of the IRS system. If anything, the IRS is a drag on the economy. Now, however, there would be a truely
44 Halls120 : Sad but true. Too many vested interests would lose if we really reformed the tax system. It's a good thing most Americans are law abiding citizens. M
45 Baroque : There is, however, a degree of correlation in that the domestic deficit increases overall spending, a proportion of which finds its way into the exte
46 Slider : Falcon- The line item veto was removed, do you remember? Probably one of the most gross miscarriages of jurisprudence I can recall. Jorge Bush has no
47 Texan : Some taxes will likely be raised again eventually. But maybe if our "honorable" Congressmen and women would stop adding bullshit spending projects and
48 AAden : doesn't matter! the majority of americans lie on the tax forms. so i suspect there will just be alot more of that!
49 CMHSRQ : How about all the people who think the government should raise taxes should have their taxes raised. While all the people who feel that paying 50% of
50 Baroque : Paradox, if you had had gas taxes at a dollar a gallon back in say 1978, you might have lower gas prices now - just a thought!
51 Pope : And what would the effect of higher gas prices had on US and global economic development for the past 30 years been?
52 DL021 : UH60...we're spending vast sums supporting our troops. If we raised taxes the available pool of revenues to spend doing that would drop....and where d
53 DeltaDC9 : Ever heard of a "notch baby"? This is the most corrupt part of the system. Someone born just one year earlier or later than someone else can have hug
54 Baroque : Higher gas prices in the US could arguably have produced more balanced development for the global economy than the distorted pattern of fuels use has
55 Cfalk : There are two legitimate purposes for taxation: 1) Increase government income to enable programs that the private sector simply cannot do, such as th
56 DL021 : Because they were forced to pay in and want their money back with the interest promised. A deal's a deal. Much the same is being promoted now by, iro
57 Adh214 : Wow by that logic zero federal taxes produces infinite tax revenue. Hmmm.... But seriously, the answer is really somewhere in the middle. We clearly
58 DL021 : Once again...I don't agree but it's funny. The answer is in reduced spending on pork, waste, social programs, and other areas that aren't really in t
59 Gilligan : The government is not supposed to be paying social security. That was designed as an independent agency. Congress in its wisdom decided long ago that
60 Baroque : Indeed. It is usually claimed that taxes produce distortions, but there do seem to be cases where not putting on taxes produces worse distortions. It
61 Adh214 : My understanding is that Social Security is cash flow positive right now. Meaning, the FICA taxes and Social Security payments actually produce a net
62 Halls120 : There is a HUGE amount of waste or duplication in most of the agencies you identify. Education could be drastically cut back, and life would go on. T
63 Post contains links Cfalk : Good news on the Deficit front: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060711/us_nm/bush_budget_forecast_dc_1 The deficit is expected to be $296 billion in the
64 Adh214 : We have to remember the Laffer curve is just that a curve. I think we can all agree that we want to maximize federal revenue with the lowest possible
65 Cfalk : Absolutely. I think we are still to the right of the apex - in other words, lower tax rates will increase revenue further. But federal spending must
66 Pope : While I don't discount that analysis, I think it is a far too basic view of the macroeconomic impact of variable. For example, higher gas prices coul
67 Pope : ***Politically incorrect hat on*** I'm sorry but I will never accept that absent a showing that it's in the US's interest, we should set our energy p
68 Gilligan : That's true, but starting in 2010 the situation will start to turn 180 degrees in a big hurry as the baby boomers turn 65. And it works right now bec
69 DeltaDC9 : What? Nobody wants to talk about the deficit going down to 296 billion due to "excessive and unplanned for" tax receipts? That is a 127 billion or 30%
70 Pope : I'm scared to ask but those 8 years won't be 1992 through 2000 would they?
71 DeltaDC9 : Clinton only had 1 low or no deficit year (depends on whos numbers are accurate), and 2 pretty low ones. The other 5 were fairly standard DC deficits
72 Pope : So which were the lower deficit years?
73 Post contains links Baroque : Its OK, I noticed which hat your were wearing, and I suspect it was not fitting too well. In relation to the invisible hand, a problem with it is tha
74 Bmacleod : Interesting discussion so far. Why then should the top 1-2% of the wealthiest Americans get a big tax cut and the middle to lower class get little or
75 DeltaDC9 : The cuts were across the board, I fail to see how the wealthiest got more. In fact by dropping the bottom bracket to 10% from 15% the poorest got a s
76 Gilligan : Which I'm almost sure the Supreme Court will rule Unconstitutional. Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Represen
77 DeltaDC9 : The first attempt was, the second attempt supposedly addresses the constitutional issues in the opinion of both sides of the isle, and if this one do
78 Post contains links Pope : Because they pay the most in taxes. Last year (2005) I paid more (almost twice as much) in federal income taxes than my wife and I made (jointly) in
79 DeltaDC9 : It does not stop there, the lowest income earners get the EIC. So they actually get a refund far in excess of the total taxes paid, and guess who pay
80 Halls120 : Because, Pope, you forget that the purpose of the tax code in the eyes of all liberals and most of the democratic party is not to support the operati
81 Post contains links Sonic99 : You misunderstand. The budget deficit is $500+ billion. - This means the current US administration has allocated $500B more for spending than it has
82 Post contains links Gilligan : News flash.....tax reciepts for the year are way up above what was planned, omg without a tax raise either, deficit now projected at less than 300 bi
83 Halls120 : Yes, our national debt is an embarrasment. thanks to decades of Congress complicity and failure to lead, we are going to leave our children a huge pi
84 Sonic99 : Yes, of course - you are right! A quick reduction of the deb, thus a reduction the debt interest payments, requires some drastic measures. It's still
85 Pope : If liberals view their political philosophy as correct - why are they so against being labelled "liberal"?
86 Sonic99 : Oh yeah.. Forgot to add. No philosophical non-answers please. A serious question deserves a serious answer.
87 ArtieFufkin : Boy! Post after Post of extreme right wing misinformation. The Adminitstration's own policy Director has conceded that only 10% of the revenue lost by
88 Pope : Of course, liberals are the only one who can determine what questions can be asked and how they can be answered. Freedom of speech is a liberal notio
89 DeltaDC9 : I think it is obvious you are misinterpreting what you have read to fit into your world view and agenda. Your insults just reinforce the obvious, you
90 ArtieFufkin : Let me spell it out for you. This was your entire post. Your last sentence is total bullshit. Now since you are not able to address the point of my ar
91 Halls120 : I sometimes use liberal and democratic in the same sentence as a touch of nostalgia for the good old days when I was what is now an endangered specie
92 ArtieFufkin : Ah here it is from the White House's Mid-session review of budget trends. "While difficult to estimate precisely," Treasury long-run analyses of the e
93 Gilligan : Can you tell me exactly what the state of the world and the U.S. economy will be in 10 years? Those kinds of predictions are just wags. And it's mine
94 ArtieFufkin : No I can't. That's why I sourced the budget experts. Yes the projections miss the mark slighthly due to economic ups and downs, but all in all they h
95 Gilligan : I'm also not clairvoyant. 10 years ago in 1997 they were predicting huge surpluses. Of course they didn't know about 9/11, the war on terror, a reces
96 ArtieFufkin : You really cant help yourself can you? You just repeat the bullshit Hannity tells you? Since I'm a "LIBERAL", I went to the 2006 Social Security Trus
97 ArtieFufkin : Well Pope after debunking the Laffer Cuve lie on this thread, and after debunking the "Social Security is going bankrupt" meme I ran across the next d
98 Gilligan : Uh, exactly where is the trust fund getting its money from? The government has been using the surplus to juice the general fund for years. There is n
99 ArtieFufkin : Wrong again Gilligan. The Social Security Trust Fund now has accumulated roughly $1.8 trillion worth of US Treasury bonds. That total debt of the Unit
100 Baroque : Liberal - let us try from the OED slightly truncated but the main meanings preserved (reduced typing is a liberty that I will take!). 1. Directed to g
101 ArtieFufkin : That's a complicated question deserving it's own thread. It is a bad word here in the USA. The right wing in the US has been able to coopt the word a
102 Baroque : And the question has to be, compared with even 10% of that, being liberal is bad?
103 Gilligan : What are treasury bonds other than IOU's or better yet, a paper credit card for the government? What is backing them up? Not gold or any other precio
104 Post contains images Halls120 : So why not help reduce the burden of future bills by making sure they don't come due in the first place? I would support a tax increase on two condit
105 Pope : This is classic liberal hypocrisy. During the late 90's the left pointed to the fantastic condition of the "Clinton Economy" (your words not mine). T
106 Halls120 : The Clinton economy was based on one part lack of regulatory oversight, one part private sector greed, and the fortuitous lack of a 9/11 attack durin
107 ArtieFufkin : Gilligan you said SS would collapse in 15 years. I showed you proof postive it will not. (I can't believe you are not principled enough to admit you w
108 Post contains images Halls120 : This is a great example of left wingers resorting to the same kind of demonization they complain about at the hands of the vast right wing conspiracy
109 ArtieFufkin : Credit where credit is due. A conservative who believes in paying the bills and not pawning it off on his kids. Probably wants to cut domestic spendi
110 Halls120 : Actually, I've expressed the same sentiments regarding responsible spending, but you seem mute when it comes to my questions. Like why are we spendin
111 ArtieFufkin : Quit being a crybaby Halls. They posted stuff as facts, I shot it down. I'm sorry to be blunt about it, but put up or shut up. As regards to your que
112 Post contains images Halls120 : Oh I see, you can shoot down arguments of YOUR choosing, but when asked to support your assertions, you resort to name calling. how mature.... this i
113 ArtieFufkin : hall what assertion did I make that I'm not able to back up? Also I havent run accross anything you've posted that I take issue with. My remarks were
114 Halls120 : Where's your facts to support the statement "In a nutshell the US is losing it's middle class, many Americans by a large are not educated and sophist
115 Post contains links ArtieFufkin : Lie #4 By Laffer Curve Boy. Refering to the Clinton years surplus. Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 31): It was a fake surplus for about ten minutes. They slas
116 Post contains links ArtieFufkin : halls you're really challenging the fact that the gap between rich and poor is widening? And the middle class is shrinking? Here's an article quoting
117 Post contains links DeltaDC9 : I ran nowhere, I have a life. I also pointed out your interpretation was wrong. And again with the insults, nothing you say has any believability whe
118 ArtieFufkin : You're lying again. You've spent the whole thread touting the "reduction" in the deficit from Bush's exaggerated prediction (surprise, surprise he do
119 DeltaDC9 : I didnt say that, someone who knows much more than you did. If there was a surplus, how did we end up adding to the debt? There is only one answere B
120 ArtieFufkin : DC9 asks a relevant question after he spouts off nonsense: There are at least three methods of presenting the deficit; the first is the "Unified Budge
121 Post contains links Pope : Well let's see. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...AQ_IXIC_-_dot-com_bubble_small.png How much market value was destroyed by this? Did it help or
122 ArtieFufkin : Let me put in in laymans terms. When you go buy a car that increases your debt. That does not mean that debt is due all that same year. You still have
123 Pope : It also increases your assets - so you net equity hasn't changed. The macroeconomic impact of a current year deficit or the accumulated debt is gener
124 DeltaDC9 : Again with the insults. You can spew crap all you want, but there is massive evidence that what I have said is true. The fact I could google that stu
125 Gilligan : When did the Titanic actually sink? When it hit the iceberg or when the stern disappeared beneath the waves? Starting around 2015-2020 pluses will tu
126 Halls120 : I wasn't referring to the part about the middle class. I was referring to your statement that "many Americans by a large are not educated and sophist
127 Nitrohelper : Old saying was: A Democrat says "give us all your money ,and we will take care of you " A Republican says " keep your money ,and take care of your sel
128 Cfalk : While I understand the sentiment, that goes a bit too far. We NEED an FBI with authority to cross all state and local boundries because some crimes r
129 Baroque : Wow. Artie, I am beginning to think you must be a LIBERAL. Possibly even an intellectual. Those properties would have got you shot when the revolutio
130 Nitrohelper : Sorry I didn't make myself clearer,I want to consolidate the FBI & ATF. As to the Interstate, I'm a civil engineer and worked on it in the '60s. Yes
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bush: No New Taxes To Fix Social Security posted Thu Dec 9 2004 18:03:13 by Falcon84
Will Bush Start 'the Duty To Serve In The Army'? posted Wed Nov 3 2004 14:11:53 by MrNiji
Will Bush Or Kerry Fly To Iraq Before November? posted Mon Jun 28 2004 10:18:24 by Ants
"Climate Change Will Destroy Us"-Pentagon To Bush posted Tue Aug 8 2006 15:01:04 by NWDC10
Is It Time To Raise Taxes? posted Mon Sep 19 2005 03:05:14 by Tbar220
Bush Looks To Cut Budget For FAA/ATC posted Fri Sep 17 2004 08:21:52 by Nasmal
Bush Appoints Pro-lifer To Family Planning Job posted Sat Nov 18 2006 03:23:15 by Dtwclipper
Does Bush Still Have Ambitions To Attack Iran? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 15:17:48 by Baroque
Drunk Man Bets To Cut Off His Penis For 2,000 USD posted Fri Aug 11 2006 20:10:02 by Clickhappy
Pres. Bush: Guantanamo Prison Camp To Be Closed posted Wed Jun 21 2006 15:30:04 by Aloges