1MillionFlyer
Topic Author
Posts: 1937
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 8:55 am

Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:53 am

From Yahoo/AP

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060207/ap_on_go_pr_wh/budget_education

Apparently the goal is to dumb down the populace and keep feeding the budget for building oil companies up.

[Edited 2006-02-07 03:54:57]
Golf Foxtrot you are cleared for departure
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:51 pm

Actually, Bush is cutting funding to oil companies in the budget. Combined with his new initiatives towards developing alternative sources of energy... you think it might be time to give the tired oil company talking points a rest for a while?

There is a lot that stinks in the budget, how about harping on something that is actually there?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
N5176Y
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:39 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:58 pm

Why do we even have a federal department of education? Schools are run by municpalities and, rarely, by states.
 
tbar220
Posts: 6706
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 12:08 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:59 pm

How can we support funding two wars?
How can we support permanent tax cuts?
How can we support major cuts in education?
How can we rebuild New Orleans with all this?
How can we support a budget that is nearly half a trillion in the red?
NO URLS in signature
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Tue Feb 07, 2006 2:24 pm

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 3):
How can we support funding two wars?

It's one war in two different locations and it's a little late to back out now.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 3):
How can we support permanent tax cuts?

How can we not?

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 3):
How can we support major cuts in education?

How about if we just let the States handle the schools? Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government is supposed to have anything to do with them anyway?

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 3):
How can we rebuild New Orleans with all this?

That's an easy one. Just give them what they want. A fair share of the energy profits that their state provides. I'm all for that.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 3):
How can we support a budget that is nearly half a trillion in the red?

We can't, but until you're ready to start talking about cutting entitlement spending all else is just pussy footing around. Entitlement spending is the 800 pound gorilla in the federal budget. All else pales besides that.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
cptkrell
Posts: 3186
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:50 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Tue Feb 07, 2006 3:28 pm

Well, someone a while back called me facitiously an "economist" (and, of course, I'm not), but would I be blind by being led by the blind in answering afore-asked questions of "how can we afford that?" by responding "we have in the past, and we can again."

And, I don't mind going back to the 6+ trillion "great society" boondoggle, the expense of the poorly executed Viet Nam adventure, the out-spending of the Soviet Union to "win" the cold war and a host of other, sometimes beneficial - sometimes best forgotten, spending campaigns. I'm not at all supportive of the zillions of bucks spilled on pork, let alone questionable international poker being played by the US government, but to blanket write-off the budget as a country-sinker is a bit premature IMO.

That said, the link provided specifically states that the $3.7B cut is an actual cut from this year's spending in Ed (although I'm still somewhat suspiscious of the semantics - is it a real cut in $ amount or a cut in formerly projected $ amount?). If it is a real OR imaginary cut, some reasons quoted are because certain programs are "deemed uneccessary or inefficient", which, as I take it from most posters in this A.net would be a damn good thing. Obviously, cutting inefficiency out of the equations of all spending programs would probably balance the budget in...what? 72 hours rather than years?

Anyway, I think it's written somewhere that the government guarantees a "right" to an education, but I don't think it's written anywhere that the government is "responsible" for insuring an education. If individual states want to locally enact "free" education, fine. That's not the Fed's responsibility.

If I'm wrong, I'll learnedly (and happily) accept updated information. Regards....jack
all best; jack
 
S12PPL
Posts: 3603
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 5:26 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Tue Feb 07, 2006 3:52 pm

Easy....

Republicans helped put that moron into office...And now they have to die with that choice.

This guy never will get it. We're going to feel his budget decisions for years to come....
Next Flights: 12/31 AS804 PDX-MCO 2/3 AS19 MCO-SEA QX2545 SEA-PDX
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:22 pm

This is a summary from the federal budget site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/

Since listing tables here is a royal pain in the ass, I will simply list the functions and subfunctions and whether their spending levels are increased or decreased significantly, along with any comments.

   means a big increase in spending.    means a decrease.    means stable spending, in line with inflation.

Remember that this is still very top-line. But it is much better than depending on the media to tell you their interpretations.

050 National defense:
051 Department of Defense—Military:
Military Personnel ..............................................   
Operation and Maintenance ..............................   
Procurement ....  
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ........   
Military Construction ..........................................   
Family Housing ..................................................  
Anticipated funding for Global War on Terror ..   ($55 billion!) 
Other ...............    ($3.5 billion)
051 Subtotal, Department of Defense—Military ...  
053 Atomic energy defense activities ...................   
054 Defense-related activities ...............................   
Total, National defense ..........................................   

150 International affairs:
151 International development and humanitarian assistance ...   
152 International security assistance ....................   
153 Conduct of foreign affairs ...............................   
154 Foreign information and exchange activities .   
Total, International affairs ......................................   

250 General science, space and technology:
251 General science and basic research .............   
252 Space flight, research, and supporting activities ...   
Total, General science, space and technology ....   

270 Energy:
271 Energy supply .................................................   
272 Energy conservation .......................................   
274 Emergency energy preparedness ..................   
276 Energy information, policy, and regulation ....   
Total, Energy .......   

300 Natural resources and environment:
301 Water resources .............................................   
302 Conservation and land management .............   
303 Recreational resources ...................................   
304 Pollution control and abatement ....................   
306 Other natural resources ..................................   
Total, Natural resources and environment ............   

350 Agriculture:
351 Farm income stabilization ...............................   
352 Agricultural research and services .................   
Total, Agriculture ....................................................   

370 Commerce and housing credit:
371 Mortgage credit ...............................................   
372 Postal Service .................................................   
373 Deposit insurance ...........................................   
376 Other advancement of commerce .................   
Total, Commerce and housing credit ....................   

400 Transportation:
401 Ground transportation ...........................................   
402 Air transportation ...........................................   
403 Water transportation .............................................   
407 Other transportation ..............................................   
Total, Transportation ........................................   

450 Community and regional development:
451 Community development ......................................   
452 Area and regional development ...........................   
453 Disaster relief and insurance ...............................    (decline due to Katrina Spending in FY 2006)
Total, Community and regional development .............   

500 Education, training, employment, and social services:
501 Elementary, secondary, and vocational education .............   
502 Higher education .......................................   (Huge drop)
503 Research and general education aids .................   
504 Training and employment .....................................   
505 Other labor services .............................................   
506 Social services ..........................................   
Total, Educ., training, employ., and social services ...   

550 Health:
551 Health care services .............................................   
552 Health research and training ................................   
554 Consumer and occupational health and safety ...   
Total, Health .....................................................   

570 Medicare:
571 Medicare ...................................................        ($50 billion increase!!!)

600 Income security:
601 General retirement and disability insurance (excluding social security) .........   
602 Federal employee retirement and disability .........   
603 Unemployment compensation ..............................   
604 Housing assistance ...................................   
605 Food and nutrition assistance ..............................   
609 Other income security ..........................................   
Total, Income security ......................................   

650 Social security:
651 Social security ...........................................   

700 Veterans benefits and services:
701 Income security for veterans ................................   
702 Veterans education, training, and rehabilitation ..   
703 Hospital and medical care for veterans ...............   
704 Veterans housing ......................................   
705 Other veterans benefits and services ..................   
Total, Veterans benefits and services .........................   


750 Administration of justice:
751 Federal law enforcement activities ................   
752 Federal litigative and judicial activities ..........   
753 Federal correctional activities .........................   
754 Criminal justice assistance .............................   
Total, Administration of justice ..............................   

800 General government:
801 Legislative functions .......................................    Congress
802 Executive direction and management ............    White House?
803 Central fiscal operations .................................   
804 General property and records management .   
805 Central personnel management .....................   
806 General purpose fiscal assistance .................   
808 Other general government .............................   
Total, General government ....................................   

Total, Net interest ..................................................   

Total federal outlay budget now accounts for 20.1% of GDP, down from 20.8% in FY 2006  thumbsup . We need to work to get this down further to 18%.

[Edited 2006-02-07 10:29:57]
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5019
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:33 pm

Where´s pretzels when you need them.

Micke//SE  Wink
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:45 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 7):
That's such a stupid question. Do you realize how stupid it sounds? Now if you were asking "How can we support permanent tax cuts with our current deficit"

Actually, your question is equally stupid, don't you see how much it is ?
Tax cuts means nothing if you don't know the level of tax.

A good way to say it would be "How can we support permanent tax cuts with the current deficit, considering how low the taxes already are and the needs of the poor population which is already in very bad shape".

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 7):
But your question reveals you as a far-left socialist.

Your sentence reveals also your political views, very far in the other side.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:07 pm

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 11):
Actually, your question is equally stupid, don't you see how much it is ?
Tax cuts means nothing if you don't know the level of tax.

I know the level of tax (17.5% of GDP last year). If you don't, I would assume that you would not participate in this thread.

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 11):
A good way to say it would be "How can we support permanent tax cuts with the current deficit, considering how low the taxes already are and the needs of the poor population which is already in very bad shape".

The tax rate is in line with the tax rate over the past 50+ years. So far, the additional programs over the past 50 years have been paid for by decreasing the military budget and passing the funds to social programs. But now that military spending is now less than 20% of the budget (it was over 60% 50 years ago), there is just no more blood that you can squeeze out of that chicken.

Non-discretionary entitlement spending is the biggest problem in the budget, and it MUST be reduced. It is the entitlement spending that must be corrected to balance the budget, not taxes. Taxes must not exceed 18%, in my opinion.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:11 pm

What I find interesting is how the press says "Bush boosts defence, hits domestic programs".

What they do is be selective on what they count in the defence budget, and play around with the numbers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060206/...u=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

The true numbers are, for defence spending (in millions):

2006... $535,943 ... 19.8% of outlays ... 4.1% of GDP
2007... $527,428 ... 19.0% of outlays ... 3.8% of GDP

And those numbers include War on Terror spending.

So defence spending is down across the board, in every valid way you can count it (percent of outlays, absolute numbers, and % of GDP)

So where is all the spin coming from? Could it be that the press is biased? Nahhh.  Yeah sure
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
slider
Posts: 6812
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:55 pm

I've always taken the approach that NO FEDERAL BUDGET is defensible whatsoever.

The entire thing is a bloated sow, a trainwreck of wasted taxpayer funds, and laden with pork.

I personally don't care if the rate of increases is beloe economic growth--the Federal budget shouldn't be tied to economic growth in a volumetrically linear manner anyhow--I denounce the construct.

No discipline whatsoever by either party--one more major nugget that supports my third party decision. Fuck em all!
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:15 am

Quoting Slider (Reply 13):
I've always taken the approach that NO FEDERAL BUDGET is defensible whatsoever.

You wouldn't happen to live in the mountains of Montana, would you?  Silly
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:21 am

Quoting Slider (Reply 13):
I've always taken the approach that NO FEDERAL BUDGET is defensible whatsoever.

Defense of the nation is defensible. Budgets for State, Treasury, and Justice are defensible. There are several others but your right, if we rand the country according to the Constitution the Federal Government would be but a shadow of itself.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
AvObserver
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 7:40 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Wed Feb 08, 2006 4:08 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 4):
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 3):
How can we support funding two wars?

It's one war in two different locations and it's a little late to back out now.

No, it's NOT one war. That's the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity, etc. spin. The war in Afghanistan is against Al Queda and the Taliban remnants. The one in Iraq was undertaken specifically to topple Saddam Hussein from power. There was NO proven link between Al Queda and Saddam. What Al Queda is in Iraq now came as a response to the U.S. invasion, not the other way around. Stop trying to insult our intelligence by trying to connect dots that aren't there. I agree it's too late to back out of war with Al Queda but at some point, Iraq's own forces will have to take over quelling the continued unrest there, if they can. The coalition will give them support for a time but they'll have to step up to the plate, at some point; it's not up to the U.S. & allies to indefinitely police Iraq. To continue to shrug your shoulders at what was an ill-advised, undermanned military effort and blindly support Bush's absurd contention Iraq is merely an extension of the conflict with Al Queda renders you as merely another Bush yes-man. However you want to justify the Iraq campaign, calling it the same war as in Afghanistan is laughable. The only common thread at this point is that in both wars, we're now fighting Muslim extremists. The difference is, that was the goal of the Afghan war but has become a largely unexpected byproduct of the Iraq conflict, in which it was initially assumed bringing order would be relatively swift after Hussein was removed. Being a "ditto-head" may keep you in good graces with Rush fans but not with those of us able to think for ourselves. Next spin, please.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Wed Feb 08, 2006 4:35 am

Quoting N5176Y (Reply 2):
Why do we even have a federal department of education? Schools are run by municpalities and, rarely, by states.

The Federal and State governments have to set standards and curricula for the schools, though. Someone has to set policy. Otherwise you wind up with schools teaching candy-ass crap like Intelligent Design. Oh, wait.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Wed Feb 08, 2006 4:39 am

Just read an article in CNN about the budget, and even a lot of Republicans aren't happy with it.

It's obvious, that Mr. Bush's main concern in this budget is to keep his first-term handout tax cut to the wealthiest Americans, at the expense, as usual with a GOP President, of the poor, the middle class and children.

What becomes a bigger and bigger joke is his pathetic Charade of this "No Child Left Behind" crapola. It should be renamed either "Most of the Children Left Behind", or "No Rich Child Left Behind", because that's the truth of it.

The tax cut is a top priority for one reason-it's the GOP's payoff for waiting 60 years to gain control of the government. It's giving people who already can't spend all their money, even more they can't spend, while the poor and middle class, what's left of the latter, gets squeezed more and more, and their tax cut doesn't even go noticed in their daily financial lives.

It makes no sense to push so hard for a permanent tax break for the wealthy, while at the same time proposing a budget which will have a record in deficit spending-and at the same time you're fighting a war. But it isn't proposed on what's sensible, but on paying off your patrons.

This one is probably DOA, at least many parts of it. And Bush, being the Lame Duck now, will see a vastly different budget from the one he's proposed.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:10 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17):
It's obvious, that Mr. Bush's main concern in this budget is to keep his first-term handout tax cut to the wealthiest Americans, at the expense, as usual with a GOP President, of the poor, the middle class and children.

Here we go again.

The rich pay more than their fair share of taxes. Here is how the income taxes are split among the population, after the tax cut.

Taxable revenue (single or joint)..............Percent of returns...............Percent of total tax collected.

$0 to $11,000.............. 21.9%............... 0.2%
$11,001 to $22,000.............. 19.4%............... 1.5%
$22,001 to $50,000.............. 29.8%............... 11.1%
$50,001 to $75,000.............. 13.4%............... 12.9%
$75,001 to $100,000.............. 7.1%............... 11.8%
$100,000 to $200,000.............. 6.5%............... 22.0%
More than $200,000.............. 1.9%............... 40.5%
.......................................100.0%............... 100.0%

So 75% of the taxes are paid by the richest 15% of the people. The poorest 40% only pay less than 2% of the tax. Are you saying that that is not enough?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17):
What becomes a bigger and bigger joke is his pathetic Charade of this "No Child Left Behind" crapola. It should be renamed either "Most of the Children Left Behind", or "No Rich Child Left Behind", because that's the truth of it.

The solution is vouchers, which he has tried to push. But he has been thwarted by people from both sides, but especially by the unions and those who are in their pockets, as well as all the politicians who stand to benefit from ensuring the continuation of an undereducated poverty class.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17):
The tax cut is a top priority for one reason-it's the GOP's payoff for waiting 60 years to gain control of the government.

As it should be. What are the budget items that are out of control today? Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlements - babies of the democrats from the New Deal to the Great Society. They are out of control because certain things were promised back in a day with certain demographics, and now those demographics simply don't work.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:25 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 18):

Goody, Charles. The wealthies 1% of the people in this nation make like 70% of the income in this nation. I imagine they can do without a little more money they can't spend so a child can get fucking health care, don't you?
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:03 pm

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 3):
How can we rebuild New Orleans with all this?

We can't, and we shouldn't, at least to the extent it was before Katrina.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 4):
We can't, but until you're ready to start talking about cutting entitlement spending all else is just pussy footing around. Entitlement spending is the 800 pound gorilla in the federal budget. All else pales besides that.

 checkmark  Congress and entitlement spending go together like an addict and his heroin.

Quoting Slider (Reply 12):
I've always taken the approach that NO FEDERAL BUDGET is defensible whatsoever.

The entire thing is a bloated sow, a trainwreck of wasted taxpayer funds, and laden with pork.

I personally don't care if the rate of increases is beloe economic growth--the Federal budget shouldn't be tied to economic growth in a volumetrically linear manner anyhow--I denounce the construct.

No discipline whatsoever by either party--one more major nugget that supports my third party decision

 checkmark 

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 17):
This one is probably DOA, at least many parts of it. And Bush, being the Lame Duck now, will see a vastly different budget from the one he's proposed.

I agree. But it's replacement will be chock full of pork for our wonderful representatives to go home and crow about.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 19):
Goody, Charles. The wealthies 1% of the people in this nation make like 70% of the income in this nation. I imagine they can do without a little more money they can't spend so a child can get fucking health care, don't you?

I can anticipate much of the bile that will flow once I hit send on this one, but here goes. When and why did it become the responsibility of the federal government to provide cradle to grave health care? Especially when we are sinking further and further into debt?

There are four things humans need to survive. Food, water, shelter, and clothing. Like it or not, health care is not an essential element of life. Does it improve our quality of life? Of course. Do we need the government to take on certain tasks relating to public health? Of course. Government should and has improved public health in a variety of ways - immunizations, enforcing food and drug purity, providing basic sanitation, etc. But paying for every doctor visit? Why???

We provide a basic social safety net for the essentials of life. People who are truly needy are provided food, shelter and clothing - as they should. People who are truly needy also ought to have access to a basic level of medical care - and they get it through Medicaid (although that program needs an overhaul to be sure.) But if you are a wage earner, paying for medical care ought to be the responsibility of the individual.

Saying that the rich need to pay more taxes so that we can provide for cradle to grave national health care - equal medical care for all - is just another way to transfer wealth from one part of society to another.

Watch the Justice part of the budget over the next few months. OMB wants to cut 1.5 billion in grant programs. I'll bet you that they are restored, despite the fact that they are nothing more than programs designed to keep our representatives in office. Ooops, I just gave away the secret as to why they will be restored!

I'll support an expansion of medical care across the board once we stop all the BS corporate and governmental subsidies that are bleeding the taxpayers dry. Until then, I'll glady keep paying for my own medical care.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2233
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:12 pm

[quote=Cfalk,reply=11]The true numbers are, for defence spending (in millions):

2006... $535,943 ... 19.8% of outlays ... 4.1% of GDP
2007... $527,428 ... 19.0% of outlays ... 3.8% of GDP

And those numbers include War on Terror spending.

So defence spending is down across the board, in every valid way you can count it (percent of outlays, absolute numbers, and % of GDP)


One question about your budget numbers. Does the 2007 figure include any supplementals? The President's budget didn't. To get a better comparison, add 55 billion to 2007. Suddenly 2007 is an increase of around 46 billion from 2006.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Wed Feb 08, 2006 3:57 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 19):
Goody, Charles. The wealthies 1% of the people in this nation make like 70% of the income in this nation. I imagine they can do without a little more money they can't spend so a child can get fucking health care, don't you?

That is an exaggeration. The richest 1.9% make 26.7% of the income, and pay over 40% of the tax.

Shouldn't charity be voluntary? Or do you have to hold a gun to everyone's head?

I have a proposal. People need to take responsibility for their own health care. That is the American way. But since children had no say as to their birth or income, how about providing health coverage for children up to age 18. Everyone else has to pay their own way.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 21):
One question about your budget numbers. Does the 2007 figure include any supplementals? The President's budget didn't. To get a better comparison, add 55 billion to 2007.

Yes, there is a line of $55 billion "Anticipated War Funding" included.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Guest

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Wed Feb 08, 2006 5:12 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20):
When and why did it become the responsibility of the federal government to provide cradle to grave health care? Especially when we are sinking further and further into debt?

Pretty simple. When someone decided Iraq was more important than the country he was elected president of.

It's the least he can do. I don't want to hear about sacrifice. I'm tired of sacrificing for Iraq. I don't want my children to as well.

B
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:42 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 22):
I have a proposal. People need to take responsibility for their own health care. That is the American way. But since children had no say as to their birth or income, how about providing health coverage for children up to age 18. Everyone else has to pay their own way.

While I agree with the first two sentences, I can't agree with the latter two.

Military pay is in three parts - base pay, basic allowance for quarters, and subsistence. The latter changes very little over your career, and base pay changes as you are promoted. Before the 1970's quarters allowance was a multiple category item. Based on your rank, if you had no dependents, you get a set amount. Get married? the BAQ goes up. And in those days, the BAQ went up every time you had an additional kid. IOW, we were paying people to have more children. Fortunately, saner heads prevailed, and now there are only two categories of BAQ - with and without dependents.

Quoting NonRevKing (Reply 23):
It's the least he can do. I don't want to hear about sacrifice. I'm tired of sacrificing for Iraq. I don't want my children to as well.

I don't ask you to pay for my car, my mortgage, or my grocery bill. Why should you be asking me to pay for your children's health care?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
slider
Posts: 6812
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:14 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 14):
Defense of the nation is defensible.

True enough. I typically don't have any problem with military defense budgets from a principle standpoint, but again, politics, bureaucracy and lack of accountability obfuscate the issue. There is bloat and waste there too, that could be more streamlined to improve efficacy of spending (body armor comes to mind).

Now, they have made great leaps in this regard, notably TRANSCOM and the combination of all supply chain, logistics and air mobility under one roof, and the implementation of RFID and satellite techology. That has improved things a lot, and reduced waste.

But in terms of total expenditures for defense programs, there's still too much political horse-trading going on.

And that's really the crux of the total budget problem--vote buying, lobbying, and utter corruption permeates the entire process. Whores--they're almost all shameless whores. The interests of the people--remember us?--aren't served. They serve themselves.

And as a result, entitlement spending and DEAD money is at an all-time high.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:03 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20):
When and why did it become the responsibility of the federal government to provide cradle to grave health care?

Let me turn that around, on what I said: when and why did it become the responsibility of the federal government to provide huge tax breaks for people who already are drowning in money? Turn it that way. As a human being, I'd rather see a poor child be able to get vaccines, or medicines, or medical treatment that his family cannot afford, then to gives someone with more money than they'll ever need even more money that they'll ever need.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 22):
That is an exaggeration. The richest 1.9% make 26.7% of the income, and pay over 40% of the tax.

Great, the richest 2% make a quarter of the income. Now, you tell me, Charles, you think they'll even MISS that tax break? Think it will stop them from seeing a doctor? Or buying a vehicle? Or taking a big fancy vacation? I don't. But when you push their tax break that won't change their standard of living one iota, on the backs of the poor, who now may not be able to get miedicine for a sick child, you think that's OK? God help you if you do.

Proves once again, there is no compassion in conservatism. It's an oxymoron.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
texdravid
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:15 am

Bush's budget is another example of Republicans losing their way. We used to be the party of anti-spending. Now look at the entitlement programs, the waste, and the pork barrel spending.

It is absolutely ridiculous. One party is tax and spend. The other party is borrow and spend. In the end, the only thing they agree on is more spending.

We need better leadership in Washington, and fast. The objects in our rear-view mirror, China and India, are closer than they appear. We need to stop this almost promiscuous spending and filthy Washington ways.
Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:33 am

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 4):
How about if we just let the States handle the schools? Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government is supposed to have anything to do with them anyway?

Makes you wish for the 1980's when they wanted to get rid of the Federal Department of Education completely.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 4):
Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 3):
How can we support major cuts in education?

How about if we just let the States handle the schools? Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government is supposed to have anything to do with them anyway?

Should be a state standard, not a federal one. There is nothing that prevents schools from ignoring federal mandates to teach to a test (No Child Left Behind) they just have to be willing to give up the money.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 13):
Quoting Slider (Reply 13):
I've always taken the approach that NO FEDERAL BUDGET is defensible whatsoever.

You wouldn't happen to live in the mountains of Montana, would you?

Slider, There are some roles for the feds, the common defense being the one most clearly spelled out in the constitution , but what has happened over the last 50-100 years is that the feds have abused the commerce clause to cast a larger and larger dark net of dispair and control over this country....sad part is the courts have allowed this to happen.

But what do you expect, the Constitutional Convention was fixed by Madison in the first place to favor the feds over the states.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:36 am

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 27):
It is absolutely ridiculous. One party is tax and spend. The other party is borrow and spend.

Actually, the GOP is now the "Tax cut and spend" party.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:01 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 26):
Great, the richest 2% make a quarter of the income. Now, you tell me, Charles, you think they'll even MISS that tax break? Think it will stop them from seeing a doctor? Or buying a vehicle? Or taking a big fancy vacation? I don't. But when you push their tax break that won't change their standard of living one iota, on the backs of the poor, who now may not be able to get miedicine for a sick child, you think that's OK? God help you if you do.

I'm not going to get into a macroeconomic debate with you, but it is my belief (and this has been supprted by a hundred years of collective economic experience around the world) that keeping money in the hands of the private sector has a higher usage multiple than if the government takes it, and that the results last longer. You give Bill Gates a tax break, and he will certainly invest all or nearly all in the financial markets, where it can be used to create new business and hire people. That's a JOB that someone can keep and feed his family with. Or you can tax it, with a lower multiple, and maybe give it away.

Remember, if it wasn't for the tax cuts, our economy would still be in the crapper. Taxes were way too high under Clinton - the highest they had ever been in 200 years.

Leave the taxes alone. Entitlement spending is the place where the budget must be balanced.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:09 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 30):
You give Bill Gates a tax break, and he will certainly invest all or nearly all in the financial markets, where it can be used to create new business and hire people.

It is amazing how many people think Bill keeps his cash in a Mason jar under the mattress in the backyard.

People with money want to grow it, so they need to invest it.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:28 am

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 15):
There was NO proven link between Al Queda and Saddam.

I never said there was but the fact remains it is still a part of the war on terror no matter what your limited view would like to imagine.

Quoting AvObserver (Reply 15):
Being a "ditto-head" may keep you in good graces with Rush fans but not with those of us able to think for ourselves. Next spin, please.

I got out of radio 7 years ago this month. I haven't looked back either. I rarely listen to talk radio unless a breaking news story is happening. I board oped more Rush shows than I care to think about so no, I am not a ditto head, sorry.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 22):
Shouldn't charity be voluntary? Or do you have to hold a gun to everyone's head?

 checkmark 

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 22):
I have a proposal. People need to take responsibility for their own health care. That is the American way. But since children had no say as to their birth or income, how about providing health coverage for children up to age 18. Everyone else has to pay their own way.

 checkmark  checkmark 

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 26):
Let me turn that around, on what I said: when and why did it become the responsibility of the federal government to provide huge tax breaks for people who already are drowning in money?

And let me ask you, why is it that someone who has legally earned their money, no matter how but legally, have to give away what they earned themselves? Once you start where do you stop? They might own a lot of property so now maybe you want to take some of their property and give it to someone who doesn't have any. Same concept. I don't have much but what I have I've worked hard to get. Why can't the poor? I could sit around and do nothing and become poor and then stay that way. Is that right? Or are you saying that the poor are some how unable to better themselves. That they are forever destined to be at the bottom of the ladder.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 26):
Proves once again, there is no compassion in conservatism. It's an oxymoron.

Compassion is what you show someone who is hurt or sick through no fault of their own such as a tsunami vicitim or someone born with a physical handicap that prevents them from living a normal life. Continuing to write a check for someone who is fully capable of working in a land where the unemployment figure is at around 5% is not compassion, it's enabling. And once again that should be a state function, not a federal one.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 28):
Makes you wish for the 1980's when they wanted to get rid of the Federal Department of Education completely.

 checkmark  checkmark  checkmark 

Quoting L-188 (Reply 28):
they just have to be willing to give up the money.

They shouldn't have to give up the money. The money should remain in the state to begin with.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 28):
but what has happened over the last 50-100 years is that the feds have abused the commerce clause to cast a larger and larger dark net of dispair and control over this country....sad part is the courts have allowed this to happen.

 thumbsup   thumbsup   thumbsup   thumbsup   thumbsup 
Actually it started right after the civil war but you are correct that since the 30s they've really ramped it up.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:10 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 26):
Let me turn that around, on what I said: when and why did it become the responsibility of the federal government to provide huge tax breaks for people who already are drowning in money? Turn it that way. As a human being, I'd rather see a poor child be able to get vaccines, or medicines, or medical treatment that his family cannot afford, then to gives someone with more money than they'll ever need even more money that they'll ever need

I'm all for the government providing vaccinations to all children free of charge. And when the truly indigent need medical care, they should get it.

Government shouldn't be giving "huge tax breaks" to the wealthy. Likewise, the wealthy shouldn't be viewed as a cash cow for everyone else.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 30):
I'm not going to get into a macroeconomic debate with you, but it is my belief (and this has been supprted by a hundred years of collective economic experience around the world) that keeping money in the hands of the private sector has a higher usage multiple than if the government takes it, and that the results last longer. You give Bill Gates a tax break, and he will certainly invest all or nearly all in the financial markets, where it can be used to create new business and hire people. That's a JOB that someone can keep and feed his family with. Or you can tax it, with a lower multiple, and maybe give it away.

Remember, if it wasn't for the tax cuts, our economy would still be in the crapper. Taxes were way too high under Clinton - the highest they had ever been in 200 years.

Leave the taxes alone. Entitlement spending is the place where the budget must be balanced.

 checkmark  checkmark  checkmark 
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Guest

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Thu Feb 09, 2006 8:19 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 24):
Why should you be asking me to pay for your children's health care?

Why should the gov't be asking me and my future generations to pay for the Iraq war?

I'll take the health care, thank you.

B
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Thu Feb 09, 2006 9:14 am

Quoting NonRevKing (Reply 34):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 24):
Why should you be asking me to pay for your children's health care?

Why should the gov't be asking me and my future generations to pay for the Iraq war?

I'll take the health care, thank you.

I'm not asking you to pay for the Iraq war, but you want me to pay for your health care?

I'll keep my money, thanks. You can pay for your own health care.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Guest

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:13 pm

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 35):
I'm not asking you to pay for the Iraq war, but you want me to pay for your health care?

I'll keep my money, thanks. You can pay for your own health care.

Unless you're name is Gov't, I wasn't asking you. But you are and will be paying for Iraq for quite some time. Glad you like that, I don't.

We all will have to pay for both, given the choice, I believe national health care benefits this country a hell of a lot more than playing the sandbox.

B
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:00 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 30):
Leave the taxes alone. Entitlement spending is the place where the budget must be balanced.

In other words, give the rich more than they can spend, OR INVEST (don't give me that line of crap that Gates will invest it all. Thats' crap, and you know it, Charles), and cut the medical care for the poor-that way the economy will GROW! Fuck the poor.

Yes, "compassionless Conservatism".

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 32):
I never said there was but the fact remains it is still a part of the war on terror no matter what your limited view would like to imagine.

Yes, P.T. Barnum was right-there's a sucker born every day. Iraq wasn't even part of the war on terror, till we let al Qaeda in there. But it sounds nice, Gilligan.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):
And when the truly indigent need medical care, they should get it.

Problem is, under this plan, some won't-all to make sure Bill Gates' net worth will stay a few billion higher, I guess. What a concept.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):
Government shouldn't be giving "huge tax breaks" to the wealthy. Likewise, the wealthy shouldn't be viewed as a cash cow for everyone else.

Right on both, Halls. I'm not asking the rich to be cash cows for everyone else. But, for God's sake, if it's a choice between a tax break for someone who has more money than they'll ever know what to do with, or some health care for the less fortunate among us, why is that even a debate?

But it seems among conservatives, it isn't a debate-the rich win every time.

The utter inhumanity among some conservatives is truly appalling. It's just beyond comprehension.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
texdravid
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Thu Feb 09, 2006 2:32 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 37):
The utter inhumanity among some conservatives is truly appalling. It's just beyond comprehension.

The utter scapegoating of wealthy individuals by some liberals is just as appalling. It's just beyond comprehension.

Get a clue, Falcon. Not everyone who is rich got that way like Paris Hilton.
Most earned it thru hard work. They are more than willing to pay their fair share, and last time I checked, they are. The top 10% of the people pay more than 60% of the taxes!

Compassion is one thing, but income redistribution, class warfare, jealously and the like are the hallmarks of a socialist economy. If you want that, I suggest you move to the great continent of Europe.
Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Thu Feb 09, 2006 3:21 pm

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 37):
In other words, give the rich more than they can spend, OR INVEST (don't give me that line of crap that Gates will invest it all. Thats' crap, and you know it, Charles), and cut the medical care for the poor-that way the economy will GROW! Fuck the poor.

Falcon, I enjoy debating with you. You are one of the better informed and articulate people on this board. But economics seems to be your achilles heel - you sound like you learned your economics from Hugo Chavez and Michael Moore! It's just populist drivel.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Thu Feb 09, 2006 6:45 pm

Quoting NonRevKing (Reply 34):
Why should the gov't be asking me and my future generations to pay for the Iraq war?

I'll take the health care, thank you.

Because provide for the common defense is in the Constituition, pay for your health care is not. Don't like the way the current government spends your money. Vote them out and vote people who will spend your tax dollars the way you want them too. It's as simple as that. Oh, by the way, you have to convince a majority of the people to vote with you, but that shouldn't be too hard.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:04 pm

Quoting NonRevKing (Reply 36):
We all will have to pay for both, given the choice, I believe national health care benefits this country a hell of a lot more than playing the sandbox.

I don't want a UK or Canadian-style national health plan - or an updated version of Hillarycare. I've seen the benefits and shortcomings of other national health care systems, thank you very much. When it becomes time, I don't want to wait for a year to have my hip replaced, like it is under the NHS in the UK. I don't want to have a shortage of CT scanners and other technical equipment like doctors in Canada have to deal with. And I especially don't want to see admisssions into specialty medical professions determined on the basis of race and gneder, which is what Hillarycare wanted to do.

If I need a heart surgeon, I want the best available - regardless of his or her race. Not someone who got a slot in the training program based on what ethnic category and gender they were.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:52 am

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 38):
The utter scapegoating of wealthy individuals by some liberals is just as appalling.

I'm not scapegoating the weathly individuals at all, Tex. I'm scapegoating those who are giving them these huge tax breaks, while cutting educational and medical benefits for the underprivelages, so the breaks can be paid for. I blame Bush and the GOP-conrolled Congress. That's what is appalling-paying for these windfalls at the expense of education and health care.

I do not begrudge anyone who has made their wealth through hard work and perseverance. That's the American Way. But I think the American Way also means taking care of those who are less fortunate. And, in my mind, giving priority to tax breaks for wealthy people who already have more than they'll ever need, AT THE EXPENSE of helping others with healthcare and education, is the wrong thing to do.

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 38):
Get a clue, Falcon. Not everyone who is rich got that way like Paris Hilton.
Most earned it thru hard work.

I don't know how many earned it-some got it the old-fashioned way-they inherited it  Big grin . And, again, I don't begrudge anyone who earned it, and worked for it. So I do have a clue.

But Rush Limbaugh is wrong-not everyone can be a millionaire or very wealthy. It's just not possible. And, in every society there are those who through circumstances, are less fortunate. I'm NOT talking about those who are mere leeches on any system in any society-but those who are poor, and do legitimately need help.

And I cannot reconcile giving huge tax breaks to wealthy individuals while at the same time pulling education and health care funding for such people. I just cannot. Call me all kinds of bad names if you want, but that's just the way I feel about it. It has nothing to do with partisian politics-I just feel that way, always have.

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 38):
Compassion is one thing, but income redistribution, class warfare, jealously and the like are the hallmarks of a socialist economy.

I'm not suggesting anything of the kind. But I cannot what I see as taking from the disadvataged to help fund a permanent tax break for the wealthy. That's how I see it. It has nothing to do with wanting to play Robin Hood, Tex. It's just that, as Christ said "Whatsover you do to the least of my brothers, is that which you do unto me." That's why when I see huge tax breaks for the wealthy in the budget, and huge cuts in programs designed for the poor, especially on health care and education, I just see it as an affront to my sensibilities.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 39):
But economics seems to be your achilles heel

And I've always said that. Why do you think my wife does the finances in the household?  Big grin

I'll ignore the insults you put in there.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 40):
Because provide for the common defense is in the Constituition,

One problem-Iraq, as we all know, had nothing to do with defending this nation. We were not in any danger from Iraq, so it doesn't apply in this situation. Afghanistan did, because we were attacked from that nation. But Iraq posed no threat to anyone. It was all a ruse.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
texdravid
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:30 pm

I must disagree with all your points, Falcon. This country does plenty and then some for the disadvantaged. There is no crisis in lack of compassion, there is a huge crisis, however, in this country on self-reliance, self-motivation, and making oneself better and more competitive.

This country's economy is on the move specifically because of Bush's tax cuts and overall plan. Is everything perfect? No, of course not. Spending is just out of control and the new budget is just atrocious when it comes to pork barrel spending.

When it come to education, there are any number of ways to get a good one without spending almost any money.

First, how about grants and no-interest loans. There are plentiful and don't think they are not. In some cases, like medical school loans, the principal is not due until you begin practice (in some cases 12 years after medical school!!)

Second, if you are a minority, you have even more loans and special scholarships available only to you. Furthermore, if you show even the slightest interest in education as a black man/woman, you can name your school and career. Bank on it.

Healthcare is another arena where every city, even the small ones where I live, admit people night and day free of charge and any and all care is free. Sure, I don't get paid, even for a heart bypass, but the point is, no one is left out in the cold. And, by the way, there is no such thing as collection agencies coming after people who don't pay their doctor or hospital. The bill is forgotten/forgiven/written off. Since January 1, my partner and I have done about 10 FREE CASES, including heart bypass, carotid artery surgery, lung cancer surgery, leg bypass surgery, pacemaker installation, and pre and post operative care.
Tort reform now. Throw lawyers in jail later.
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:49 am

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 42):
One problem-Iraq, as we all know, had nothing to do with defending this nation.

I'd be willing to bet that for every dollar spent in Iraq there are probably 10 spent elsewhere in the federal budget that have nothing to do with what the Constitution says the government should be spending money on.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
rwsea
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:23 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Sat Feb 11, 2006 1:11 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 30):
I'm not going to get into a macroeconomic debate with you, but it is my belief (and this has been supprted by a hundred years of collective economic experience around the world) that keeping money in the hands of the private sector has a higher usage multiple than if the government takes it, and that the results last longer. You give Bill Gates a tax break, and he will certainly invest all or nearly all in the financial markets, where it can be used to create new business and hire people. That's a JOB that someone can keep and feed his family with. Or you can tax it, with a lower multiple, and maybe give it away.

Not true - ask a macro-economist what will jump-start the economy. #1 they will always tell you is increasing government spending. Tax cuts are a distant second. Government spending all goes directly to support jobs, build infrastructure, and take care of the citizens. Tax cuts goes to people's pockets, and the wealthy usually save it and the non-wealthy don't get enough to make a difference.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 32):
I never said there was but the fact remains it is still a part of the war on terror no matter what your limited view would like to imagine.

Iraq is not a part of the war on terror and never has been. Unfortunately it's becoming a part of the war on terror, because the good old USA has taken one of the more stable nations in the middle east and turned it into a law-less incubator for terrorists.

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 32):
And let me ask you, why is it that someone who has legally earned their money, no matter how but legally, have to give away what they earned themselves? Once you start where do you stop? They might own a lot of property so now maybe you want to take some of their property and give it to someone who doesn't have any. Same concept. I don't have much but what I have I've worked hard to get. Why can't the poor? I could sit around and do nothing and become poor and then stay that way. Is that right? Or are you saying that the poor are some how unable to better themselves. That they are forever destined to be at the bottom of the ladder.

While your idea sounds great in theory, poverty is a cycle. It's not so simple as someone just getting a job.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):
Government shouldn't be giving "huge tax breaks" to the wealthy. Likewise, the wealthy shouldn't be viewed as a cash cow for everyone else.

Agreed. But you have to admit that things like estate tax cuts and capital gain tax cuts pretty much only benefit the wealthy. Why not instead give those tax cuts in the form of scholarships, tax credits for a certain income, or lowering only the lowest 2-3 tax brackets by a few % points? That's the real way to jumpstart the economy as opposed to giving more tax cuts for athletes, movie stars, and the fabulously wealthy to just add to their bank account?

Quoting Texdravid (Reply 43):
This country's economy is on the move specifically because of Bush's tax cuts and overall plan. Is everything perfect? No, of course not. Spending is just out of control and the new budget is just atrocious when it comes to pork barrel spending.

Not true. The tax cuts haven't done much at all. As you may be aware, economic activity is highly cyclical and it's clear that after two recessions the only place to go is up. The economy is improving because people have returned to their pre 9/11 habits. The war in Iraq has also helped the economy.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:49 pm

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 45):
Not true - ask a macro-economist what will jump-start the economy. #1 they will always tell you is increasing government spending. Tax cuts are a distant second. Government spending all goes directly to support jobs, build infrastructure, and take care of the citizens.

Increasing government spending, yes, but without raising the taxes to go with it. In other words, deficit spending stimulates the economy, not just government spending. If you raise taxes to compensate for the increased spending the economy would get worse. Deficit spending is essentially free money into the economy (free for now, anyway).

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 45):
Iraq is not a part of the war on terror and never has been. Unfortunately it's becoming a part of the war on terror,

Oopsie! Notice the problem of logic here?

BTW, how do you explain Saddam's playing host to an Al Qaeda training camp in northern Iraq, as well as providing shelter and medical care for terrorists fleeing afghanistan, like Zarquawi, or Abu Abbas, who was a known terrorist, hijacker and murderer since the 80s, or Saddam's habit of offering money to the family of anyone willing to start a bomb-vest around his chest and to go murder women and children?

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 45):
While your idea sounds great in theory, poverty is a cycle. It's not so simple as someone just getting a job.

What?!? Steady, reasonable income is all you need to get out of poverty.

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 45):
Not true. The tax cuts haven't done much at all.

You said it yourself. It provided the deficit spending that was needed.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Gilligan
Posts: 1993
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 12:15 pm

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:38 pm

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 45):
Iraq is not a part of the war on terror and never has been. Unfortunately it's becoming a part of the war on terror, because the good old USA has taken one of the more stable nations in the middle east and turned it into a law-less incubator for terrorists.

And just how was that "stable" government able to remain in power?

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 45):
While your idea sounds great in theory, poverty is a cycle. It's not so simple as someone just getting a job.

If that was true then it would also be true that "wealth" is a cycle. BTW, you didn't answer the basic questions asked. Are the poor destined to be poor forever? Are you saying that they cannot better themselves?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Sun Feb 12, 2006 6:25 am

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 45):
While your idea sounds great in theory, poverty is a cycle. It's not so simple as someone just getting a job.

Poverty is a cycle because we've made it far too easy to remain on the government dole. When welfare rules were changed by Clinton (one of the best things he did) to put a time limit on their receipt (except for the loophole that allows states to waive the mandatory cap), many people claimed the world was going to end. Surprise, the world didn't end.

My grandmother had to raise 7 kids during the depression when my grandfather walked out on her. There was no welfare or food stamps, so she went out and got a job. She worked until her mid-seventies, BTW. Not because she had to, but because she didn't believe in taking handouts.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
B2707SST
Posts: 1258
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Bush Budget ...How Can Anyone Support This?

Sun Feb 12, 2006 8:49 am

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 45):
Not true - ask a macro-economist what will jump-start the economy. #1 they will always tell you is increasing government spending. Tax cuts are a distant second. Government spending all goes directly to support jobs, build infrastructure, and take care of the citizens.

Actually, this is almost completely incorrect.

The greatest American macroeconomist in American history, with the probable exception of Milton Friedman, is named Paul Samuelson. He was the second person and first non-Scandinavian to win the Nobel Prize in Economics, was largely responsible for the overwhelming success of Keynesian economics in America in the 1950s and '60s, and has profoundly influenced the course of modern economics.

Beginning in the late 1960s, the traditional Keynesianism Samuelson had done so much to promote came under increasing theoretical and empirical criticism from which it has never recovered. By the 1990s, Samuelson himself had admitted that "Fiscal policy is no longer a major tool of stabilization policy in the United States."

The consensus among modern macroeconomists, if there is such a thing, is that tax policy has important effects on the economy's long-run growth rate. High taxes discourage work, capital formation, foreign investment, lead to unproductive efforts to evade taxes rather than create wealth, and generally suppress productive activity. Ireland is a perfect example of how wise fiscal policy can have dramatic effects on long-run economic growth. Economists who advocate of a higher or more progressive tax structure usually do so in spite of, not because of, the effect of taxation and government spending on economic growth.

However, changes in the tax structure take too long to implement and are too unwieldly to be effective across the time horizon of a typical business cycle (12-18 months). Monetary policy, in the form of the Federal Reserve's open market operations, is a more precise, direct, and responsive policy tool, although even monetary policy has a substantial lag before its effects are completely felt and there is lively debate about its long-run effectiveness.


In less technical terms, the big problem with government spending is that the government can't spend anything that it has not taxed or borrowed from someone else. Every dollar the government spends on social programs, infrastructure, on "creating jobs," etc. represents a dollar that someone else did not spend. This is no more "stimulative" to the economy than my taking a $20 bill out of your wallet and spending it myself.

Fiscal policy simply redirects streams of income from private to public control. It does not create any new wealth, and insofar as the government spends money less efficiently than the private sector (e.g. pork-barrel projects), government "crowding out" of private spending is likely to reduce dampen overall economic activity.



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 37):
In other words, give the rich more than they can spend, OR INVEST (don't give me that line of crap that Gates will invest it all. Thats' crap, and you know it, Charles),

So if the rich don't spend their money, and they don't save it, what exactly do they do with it? Keep it in a vault to roll around in? Any other use, including depositing it in a bank account, buying stocks or bonds, investing in mutual funds, or directly investing in venture capital funds, will cause their money to re-enter the "circular flow" of income streams and contribute to someone else's economic activity.



Quoting RwSEA (Reply 45):
Tax cuts goes to people's pockets, and the wealthy usually save it and the non-wealthy don't get enough to make a difference.

Another unfortunate relic of Keynesianism is that savings are "sterile," i.e. that they vanish from the economy. This is why politicians and media types who ought to know better are always browbeating the public to "spend more." In reality, savings are crucial to economic growth and increasing our standard of living. The financial system's sole purpose is to channel money from those who want to save into the hands of those who want to borrow. Some borrowing results in current consumption (e.g. credit card debt), but much of it is done to finance capital expenditures.

Long-run economic growth is deeply dependent (many economists would say entirely dependent) on capital formation, which is not possible if we consume all of our current income, that is, if we don't save. Internationally, the correlation between a nation's savings rate and its long-run economic growth is very strong. The demonization of saving in government, the media, and "popular" economics (such as it is) is one of the worst consequences of Keynesianism, and it has probably already done significant damage to America's long-run growth rate.

--B2707SST
Keynes is dead and we are living in his long run.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bongodog1964, NoTime and 11 guests