Even more political rants

[FinanceDude]

So I guess a cut in tax rates does create more revenue to the government afterall.

It does work, but not according to Democrats............

 

[Cut-Throat]

It does work, but not according to Democrats............

There has never been a 'Tax Cut' during the Reagan or Bushie years! - Only Tax deferrals, that have been passed on to future generations. Since there was no associated decrease in spending, it was impossible to have a Tax Cut.

Reagan just got out the Visa Card and started spending, the same mirage that is created in an American Home when the uniformed increases his standard of living by mortgaging the future!

You guys just keep drinking the Republican Kool-Aid. - Deep down, do you really believe this Load! :

 

[Arc]

There has never been a 'Tax Cut' during the Reagan or Bushie years! - Only Tax deferrals, that have been passed on to future generations. Since there was no associated decrease in spending, it was impossible to have a Tax Cut.

Reagan just got out the Visa Card and started spending, the same mirage that is created in an American Home when the uniformed increases his standard of living by mortgaging the future!

You guys just keep drinking the Republican Kool-Aid. - Deep down, do you really believe this Load! :

I believe it is a matter of record that tax cuts - not tax increases - result in increased tax revenues.

On the spending side, Bush sure has disappointed, but hold onto your wallet if Dems get control - can you imagine government healthcare?

I am really surprised that so many financially astute people in this forum are so willing to give more of their hard earned / saved money back to the government.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I am really surprised that so many financially astute people in this forum are so willing to give more of their hard earned / saved money back to the government.

Me too. Sick, sick, sick.

JG

 

[astromeria]

I believe it is a matter of record that tax cuts - not tax increases - result in increased tax revenues.

I believe the data are inconclusive. In any case, I prefer to cut middle class taxes. The wealthy don't need more municipal bonds as much as middle class America needs the basics of a decent life.

On the spending side, Bush sure has disappointed, but hold onto your wallet if Dems get control - can you imagine government healthcare?

Yes, my mother uses Medicare. Works great.
Bush aided by this Republican Congress has outspent every other administration and dug us into the worst deficit ever--and yet you point your fingers at what Democrats might do in the future (and for health care, no less, not for worse than useless invasions and occupations!). hokay.... :

I am really surprised that so many financially astute people in this forum are so willing to give more of their hard earned / saved money back to the government.

Consider turning off Rush, turning off Fox, and listening to some other voices.

 

[Texas Proud]

I had read this awhile back.. and thought that it was not true... but it seems to be.... this is for spending... and maybe more .... I don't remember it all..

The WORST government is REPUBLICAN congress and REPUBLICAN president...

The next worse... DEM congress and DEM president....

The next worse... DEM congress and REB president...

And the best... I hate to admit... REP congress and DEM president...

This even holds true with Clinton... spending was WAY down compared to other times and they were even talking about a balanced budget for awhile...

Well, the REPs have dashed that thought... and now talking about another decade or more to get it back there... but guess what? We have this BIG IOU coming and there is NO WAY we will be in balance for the rest of my life... maybe even my nephews and nieces lives... I see 50 plus years of deficiets with the SS, Medicare, drug plan and other 'mandatory' spending...

 

[Arc]

I believe the data are inconclusive. In any case, I prefer to cut middle class taxes. The wealthy don't need more municipal bonds as much as middle class America needs the basics of a decent life.


Yes, my mother uses Medicare. Works great.
Bush aided by this Republican Congress has outspent every other administration and dug us into the worst deficit ever--and yet you point your fingers at what Democrats might do in the future (and for health care, no less, not for worse than useless invasions and occupations!). hokay.... :


Consider turning off Rush, turning off Fox, and listening to some other voices.

My problem with your rational is twofold: (1) Capitalism IMHO is not a needs based philosophy, it is contribution based and (2) I struggle with who gets to determine who needs what - Bonds vs decent way of life may seem obvious but it gets slippery very quickly.


I wasn't really referring to Medicare (which is in financial distress). I'm referring to the cradle to grave insurance plan that will be inevitable if Dems return to power. I'm not aware of one service that the Federal Govt delivers in a more efficient and cost effective manner than the private sector and we think that Healthcare will be the exeption?

I also agree that Bush outspent previous administrations - my twisted view here is that he did it to take issues away from the Dems - beat them to the punch so to speak. A high cost to retain power. Regarding the War, I'm very comfortable with an aggressive stance by US on matters of National Security. As it relates to $ cost, you tell me what this American way of life is worth.

Is Dan Rather back on? What Channel?

 

[sgeeeee]

...

The WORST government is REPUBLICAN congress and REPUBLICAN president...

The next worse... DEM congress and DEM president....

. . .

This really isn't too surprising. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A politician that doesn't have to compromise tends not to listen to all voices.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

This really isn't too surprising. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A politician that doesn't have to compromise tends not to listen to all voices.

And a polemist who doesn't want to compromise tends not to listen to any voices.

JG

 

[wompo]

I believe it is a matter of record that tax cuts - not tax increases - result in increased tax revenues.

On the spending side, Bush sure has disappointed, but hold onto your wallet if Dems get control - can you imagine government healthcare?

I am really surprised that so many financially astute people in this forum are so willing to give more of their hard earned / saved money back to the government.

If you cut taxes and get increased tax revenues I am assuming the people getting the tax cuts are then spending them in a way that will create jobs. Is it true that when tax cuts are made the unemployment rate decreases?

 

[Kwirk]

I believe it is a matter of record that tax cuts - not tax increases - result in increased tax revenues.

Then the obvious answer is to drop taxes to zero and collect a fortune? : Surely you must realize that either too much or too little taxation is harmful.

I'm beginning to think there is something to this Republican Kool-aid idea.

 

[Gone4Good]

There has never been a 'Tax Cut' during the Reagan or Bushie years! - Only Tax deferrals, that have been passed on to future generations. Since there was no associated decrease in spending, it was impossible to have a Tax Cut.

Yes and no.

Certainly there is more government debt in absolute terms. But there is also more national income. The idea that we are passing tax increases along to future generations implies that future generations will be worse off. That is only true if the economy is less able to service the higher debt load. But the debt / GDP ratio is about the same now as it has been for the past 40 years, suggesting the economy is no less able to support its debt burden now then in 1960.

Unfunded entitlement obligations are another story.

 

[Arc]

Then the obvious answer is to drop taxes to zero and collect a fortune? : Surely you must realize that either too much or too little taxation is harmful.

I'm beginning to think there is something to this Republican Kool-aid idea.

Where did that come from?

 

[kumquat]

can you imagine government healthcare?

Since I live in Canada, I can. Top income tax rate, starting at about $70K is about 47% (varies by province), 6% Federal sales tax, 6% Provincial sales tax (varies by province, 1 is 0%), some provinces have 'Health Care Premium' of about $400).

Quality and accessability won't be mentioned here.

 

[lets-retire]

I've heard the experts, don't ask where it was a long time ago, say that once the tax burden reaches about 40%, a very large underground economy develops. I would think Canada has that economy.

 

[donheff]

Then the obvious answer is to drop taxes to zero and collect a fortune? : Surely you must realize that either too much or too little taxation is harmful.

I'm beginning to think there is something to this Republican Kool-aid idea.

Kwirk has it right. At some level taxes undountedly become enough of an anchor that they depress output. But at today's levels, cuts cannot be expected to pay for themselves. Any tax cuts need to be accompanied by cuts in spending. That wasn't done with the Bush cuts and that is why they are driving us deeper and deeper into a hole. Add in the fact that Bush's war didn't pay for itself either (as they projected it would) and we are in dire straits.

take a look at this analysis to get an idea of what the data show about tax cuts and revenue. Here is a quote:

Despite recent statements by the President, Vice President, and certain Congressional leaders that tax cuts pay for themselves, economists from across the political spectrum — including the Administration’s current and former chief economists — reject this notion. Further, the Treasury Department’s own analysis of the President’s tax cuts confirms common sense and conventional wisdom; it concludes that, even under favorable assumptions, the tax cuts would generate added growth that would offset no more than 10 percent of their long-term costs.

Disclaimer: the link is to the Center on Budget and Policies Priorities. This is an outfit that was established in the early 80s to analyze the impact of budget actions on the poor. So it could be expected to lean left. But its analyses stand on their own. Read them and counter - don't just make ad hominem attacks a la Rush.

 

[donheff]

As long as this thread is described in generic terms I guess it is OK to change the sub-subject. Now the party of limited government has decided it is appropriate to waste spend our tax dollars telling adults not to have sex. From a US Today article:

The federal government's "no sex without marriage" message isn't just for kids anymore. Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007."

 

[Arc]

Kwirk has it right. At some level taxes undountedly become enough of an anchor that they depress output. But at today's levels, cuts cannot be expected to pay for themselves. Any tax cuts need to be accompanied by cuts in spending. That wasn't done with the Bush cuts and that is why they are driving us deeper and deeper into a hole. Add in the fact that Bush's war didn't pay for itself either (as they projected it would) and we are in dire straits.

take a look at this analysis to get an idea of what the data show about tax cuts and revenue. Here is a quote:

Despite recent statements by the President, Vice President, and certain Congressional leaders that tax cuts pay for themselves, economists from across the political spectrum — including the Administration’s current and former chief economists — reject this notion. Further, the Treasury Department’s own analysis of the President’s tax cuts confirms common sense and conventional wisdom; it concludes that, even under favorable assumptions, the tax cuts would generate added growth that would offset no more than 10 percent of their long-term costs.

Disclaimer: the link is to the Center on Budget and Policies Priorities. This is an outfit that was established in the early 80s to analyze the impact of budget actions on the poor. So it could be expected to lean left. But its analyses stand on their own. Read them and counter - don't just make ad hominem attacks a la Rush.

I am all for tax cuts and reduced spending. I believe the Republicans are our best bet for tax cuts (or at least no tax hikes) - especially since the Dems agenda clearly states their intent to roll back Bush tax cuts - its a matter of record.

And even given recent history, I'll go with the Republicans on spending over the long term. National Healthcare scares me as does Dems refusal to seriously look at a Social Security - these dollars are astronomical. And no I didn't forget about the war. Whether you agree with it or not, National Defense is one of the very few expenditures that is actually provided for in the Constitution.

 

[eridanus]

I am all for tax cuts and reduced spending. I believe the Republicans are our best bet for tax cuts (or at least no tax hikes)

Well, Bush and the Repubs got one out of two, just like Clinton.

Bush the elder? "Read my lips."

Reagan? Tax cut, tax hikes, and increased spending. So 3/4 out of 2?

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Whether you agree with it or not, National Defense is one of the very few expenditures that is actually provided for in the Constitution.

And one of the very few things the fed. government should even get involved in.

JG

 

[donheff]

I am all for tax cuts and reduced spending. I believe the Republicans are our best bet for tax cuts (or at least no tax hikes) - especially since the Dems agenda clearly states their intent to roll back Bush tax cuts - its a matter of record.

And even given recent history, I'll go with the Republicans on spending over the long term. National Healthcare scares me as does Dems refusal to seriously look at a Social Security - these dollars are astronomical. And no I didn't forget about the war. Whether you agree with it or not, National Defense is one of the very few expenditures that is actually provided for in the Constitution.

OK but explain how you are going to deal with the growing debt - eliminate social security and medicare/medicaid?

 

[Arc]

OK but explain how you are going to deal with the growing debt - eliminate social security and medicare/medicaid?

No easy answer here - but first step is to make at an economic matter and not a political one. Let's quit scaring people - any effort to address SS is met by Dems painting Republicans as thieves wanting to take peoples checks away - they've been very effective with the uninformed.

As an economic, matter the informed understand that it's just a terrible deal - anyway you look at it. Something needs done. I admit it is a problem of monumental proportion, with no easy answer. And expecting our politicians to be able to solve these may just be plain unrealistic.

So I will continue to save - like you all - and insure that the success or failure of SS Medicare has zero impact on financial security.

 

[Zoocat]

Regarding the War, I'm very comfortable with an aggressive stance by US on matters of National Security. As it relates to $ cost, you tell me what this American way of life is worth.

I remember this rationale for war spending in the past, i.e. Vietnam. Isn't it funny how it comes around and around?
One thing you might keep in mind is what happened to the Soviet Union after we spent them into the ground on the arms race. Bin Laden, et al, seem to have the same strategy that we had in the Cold War, threaten, threaten, little bombs, big bombs, make the Soviets keep up with us in spending until their economy collapses. Our government under Bush is falling into the same trap. Our government is now in such severe debt that soon there will be no way to pay back loans to China. Then what?
I doubt there's any need to worry about the Democrats starting any more entitlement insurance programs. There's no money for the ones we have now. The only new taxes will be raised to pay back the debt created by 8 years of Mr. Bush.

 

[Arc]

I remember this rationale for war spending in the past, i.e. Vietnam. Isn't it funny how it comes around and around?
One thing you might keep in mind is what happened to the Soviet Union after we spent them into the ground on the arms race. Bin Laden, et al, seem to have the same strategy that we had in the Cold War, threaten, threaten, little bombs, big bombs, make the Soviets keep up with us in spending until their economy collapses. Our government under Bush is falling into the same trap. Our government is now in such severe debt that soon there will be no way to pay back loans to China. Then what?
I doubt there's any need to worry about the Democrats starting any more entitlement insurance programs. There's no money for the ones we have now. The only new taxes will be raised to pay back the debt created by 8 years of Mr. Bush.

Oldbabe,
You lost me - are you equating Bin Ladens attack on the US with the US response to Russia during the cold war?
.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

I doubt there's any need to worry about the Democrats starting any more entitlement insurance programs. There's no money for the ones we have now.

When did that ever stop them?

JG