Tax and spend, or borrow and spend.......

[91XJRubicXD]

The sad part about this whole raise in pricing for fuel is the simple fact, we are paying these high prices and haven't even recieved the goods. But... at the same time the people of this wonderful country don't seem to care about it at the same time. First off, you have all these people bitch'n about the high prices yet what are they doing ? Are they riding there bikes to work, car-pooling, walking to the bus stop, 99% of the country, unlikely. Stop buying the fuel and you'll see what happens to prices, if millions stopped buying fuel for one single week, even a single day, they would have to drop the price of fuel, because they will be losing. Remember, we don't let the mountain come to us, we have to go to the mountian, otherwise you'll be sitting on your @ss doing nothing accept watching it continue. Ghana, Africa there dollar is currently equal to the US dollar, wtf is going on with this country. Richest country in the world until the Euro jumped in play. Don't mind me just adding all the dumb things happening

 

[Trail-Axe]

I'm a 'pay as I go' type of guy.

I have no frivolous (sp) debt. NONE!

You are one of the few, way to go! I to have zero (0) debt. Everything I own (everything), is paid for as well. Now as far as our country, man, we need to stop spending. Your pole question is like the "Do you still beat your wife question." One whom has never beat his wife can not answer that question with a two choice answer.

So I believe we need to first cut spending. You and I do not spend more money then we have. When there are things we want, but can not afford, we do with out them, or we save first. We should elect people who can run our country the same way.

 

[Mudderoy]

Lower the taxes and downsize the federal governemnt.

 

[TRNDRVR]

Lower the taxes and downsize the federal governemnt.

So, what about our record federal deficit?

How about keep taxes as they are and downsize the federal government?

*edit* The problem as I see it is we have too many people voting on their own jobs, so "downsizing the federal government", as good as it sounds, probably won't happen.

 

[WrenchMonkey]

So, what about our record federal deficit?

Actually, there isn't one.

As a percent of GDP, it's running about half of its historical highs.

But that doesn't fit the "Omigawd we're dying" news cycle, so it's never reported/discussed/understood.

Robert

 

[TRNDRVR]

Actually, there isn't one.

Oh?

WASHINGTON - The next president will inherit a record budget deficit of $482 billion, according to a new Bush administration estimate released Monday........

Now I'll never claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed but...........:huh:

 

[WrenchMonkey]

Now I'll never claim to be the sharpest tool in the shed but...

And we're not accusing you of it

I'll assume you read more than four words of my post, and just don't believe me...

Nussle said the 2008 deficit is "just slightly above the average of the last 40 years," and that the deficit for the next fiscal year, a $482 billion or 3.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), is "still below the recent peak of 3.6 percent of GDP in 2004, and it's well below the record deficit of all time, which was 6.0 percent of GDP back in 1983."

Link

I guess you'll call it spin, I call it context...

Robert

 

[JNickel101]

And don't forget, budget deficit has as much to do with government spending as it does with lack of incoming taxes....

Taxing by way of income taxes is by no means a steady, constant source of income.

Another vote for fairtax.org

 

[TRNDRVR]

You two guys better call the Bush administration and fill them in on this information. Obviously you guys know more than they do.

 

[JohnX]

You two guys better call the Bush administration and fill them in on this information. Obviously you guys know more than they do.

Come on....it is definetely "context"

You can make witty remarks all you want, but the poster was posting clear evidence and instead of a rebuttal, you ignore the evidence and make a wise crack about him??? Gimme a farking break....I know you're not that stupid.

 

[WrenchMonkey]

You two guys better call the Bush administration and fill them in on this information. Obviously you guys know more than they do.

Okay, let's try this again:

White House Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle said the 2008 deficit is "just slightly above the average of the last 40 years," and that the deficit for the next fiscal year, a $482 billion or 3.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), is "still below the recent peak of 3.6 percent of GDP in 2004, and it's well below the record deficit of all time, which was 6.0 percent of GDP back in 1983."

Does that help?

Dingleberry.

Robert

 

[Ecomike]

Link

I guess you'll call it spin, I call it context...

Robert

Interesting. Wasn't a republican by the name of Ronald Reagan in Office then, 1983? That is a rhetorical question. IIRC he ran promissing to balance the budget like he did in California, and then he promptly ran up the largest budget deficits in US History at the time by cutting taxes to the rich (it was called trickle down economics, I am still waiting for trickle!:tear, and writing blank checks to the defense contractors to fund the star wars missile defense system. He also let the Fed run the Fed funds interest rate up to about 20% to kill inflation, and put millions of americans out of work in the process. Inflation adjusted wages of the middle class have never caught up with the damage Reagan did during his era.

But I here what you are saying about % of GDP budget deficits, that is the real issue. Have you actually verified those numbers?

I will make a counter point, that the Bush deficits were at time when we had very, very low unemployment, and record tax receipts, so we should have had a budget surplus for once, not a huge deficit. The Reagan deficits were when unemployment was the worst since the Great Depression, which was at a time when the government is forced to raise the deficit to restart the economy. If Reagan had raised taxes and balanced the budget, or at least came closer to balancing it, interests rates would have fallen instead of skyrocketing, further lowering the deficit, or creating a surplus, which would have brought inflation down and solved the economic problems of that period. Back then the largest part of the federal budget was interest on debt. In short Republican Reaganomics (trickle down theory of reducing taxes for the ultra wealthy) was a disaster, and Bush Jr. has continued that disasterous Reagonomic policy of taxing the middle class out of existance while concentrating more than 90% of the wealth of the USA in the hands of fewer that 100 people (or there abouts).

I find it strange that Republicans made the most noise since about 1976 about balancing the federal budget during elections, and then ran up the largest deficits since then (Reagan-Bush Era), while only one Democratic president ever had a balanced budget since then. I think JFKennedy was the last before Clinton to have a balanced budget, or a surplus.

 

[WrenchMonkey]

See, that's the trouble with debating a liberal: Any time you make a point, they just change the subject....

Reaganomics did work, and if your personal income and situation haven't improved with the rest of us since 1980, it's because you're doing it wrong. We can debate that elsewhere if you like...

The closest you got to on-topic was this:

Bush deficits were at time when we had very, very low unemployment, and record tax receipts

Which begs the question: How did we manage record receipts if Bush gave billions in tax cuts to all those nasty rich people?

It's because, as I said, cutting taxes stimulates the economy, which increases tax revenues.

So the answer to the poll is "Borrow and spend, cut taxes, increase revenues, and reduce the not-so-record deficit."

Robert

 

[the_weirdo]

I cannot overspend my income by 0.5 Trillion. Why should the government be able to? Who pays for it in the end?

 

[WrenchMonkey]

Who pays for it in the end?

Nobody. Our grandparents didn't, our parents didn't, we won't, our kids won't.

Everybody talks about it, everybody just passes it on down the line...

Robert

 

[Ecomike]

See, that's the trouble with debating a liberal: Any time you make a point, they just change the subject....


Robert

And your point was? LOL.

And here I always thought that was the problem with debating conservatives, silly me, LOL.

:worship:

:cheers:

Seriously, You have introduced some factual information and statements, that many here might find interesting, I already knew them, but I do not agree with all your conclusions. And I don't think the pissed off taxpayers in this forum will agree that they are not paying for some of those deficits, regardless of what you and I think. What I find curious is that as well informed as you are, you are still a conservative?

 

[Ecomike]

The closest you got to on-topic was this:



Which begs the question: How did we manage record receipts if Bush gave billions in tax cuts to all those nasty rich people?

It's because, as I said, cutting taxes stimulates the economy, which increases tax revenues.



Robert

You missed one major variable. They dropped the Fed funds rate down so low, for so long, to levels we have not seen since the Great Depression, that it overstimulated the economy, that is a big part of what increased employment, thus increased tax revenues, and thus made it look like the tax cuts stimulated the economy. We are just now starting to see the huge infationary effects of that mistake. No doubt, some tax cuts like deductions for buying a new vehicle hepled the auto industry for a few years, but look where that got us. The big three are in real trouble now. I don't beleive cutting the tax rate on corporate dividends, or the tax rate on those who make over $10,000,000.00 a year helped stimulate anything but their greed.

 

[scat]

You and lots others. Thank you.

Military is one of the few services that the gov't should provide the people. Again, as was stated earlier:

Originally Posted by Alexander Hamilton regarding the purpose of our Federal Gov't
"(1) The common defense (national security);
(2) the preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks;
(3) the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states;
(4) the superintendent of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries (foreign affairs)." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No.23, 1787 - a founding father with most important interpretation of the Constitution.

Ok, This is an honerable persuit, I agree. I work in the defense industry, and have "followed orders" for 25+ years in this endevour to provide tools so that the nation, can remain safe. Lets make this more general. The averave person, be it the local sanitation worker or the mechanic that fixes the suff you can't, Cops and Firemen, provides you a sevice that makes life a bit more enjoyable and safe. Would you denie them the beifits that you enjoy?

 

[scat]

The sad part about this whole raise in pricing for fuel is the simple fact, we are paying these high prices and haven't even recieved the goods. But... at the same time the people of this wonderful country don't seem to care about it at the same time. First off, you have all these people bitch'n about the high prices yet what are they doing ? Are they riding there bikes to work, car-pooling, walking to the bus stop, 99% of the country, unlikely. Stop buying the fuel and you'll see what happens to prices, if millions stopped buying fuel for one single week, even a single day, they would have to drop the price of fuel, because they will be losing. Remember, we don't let the mountain come to us, we have to go to the mountian, otherwise you'll be sitting on your @ss doing nothing accept watching it continue. Ghana, Africa there dollar is currently equal to the US dollar, wtf is going on with this country. Richest country in the world until the Euro jumped in play. Don't mind me just adding all the dumb things happening

I car-pool now, but I don't like it. My car pool partner doesnt care about surfing =(

 

[Ecomike]

Nobody. Our grandparents didn't, our parents didn't, we won't, our kids won't.



Robert

Both of my parents, God rest their souls, would have strongly disagreed with you, and they were both ultra conservative Texas Rebublicans. They were convinced the national dept was costing them dearly in income taxes. My Mother was sold on returning to the Gold standard, which was another major conservative republican stand in the 80s.