Let Them Eat Cake

[FOTD]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/bush-tax-cuts/

Bush: People Will 'Look Back' At 'This Moment In Economic History' And Say 'Tax Cuts Work'

Whats worse?
Tax and spend Democrats
or
Borrow and spend Republicans?

[Conan71]

Or, as my brother used to say: "**** 'em, feed 'em fish heads!"

[FOTD]

It won't work, of course. And the Repubs are about to run another guy who "doesn't know much about economics" but is willing to talk about another 100 years of war. And approximately half of Americans will vote for him!

Let's remember how the tax INCREASES Clinton pushed through just "ruined" the economy during the entire 1990s, while Bush's tax CUTS have gotten us where we are now.


"When the power of love overcomes
the love of power the world will know peace."

 Jimi Hendrix

[cannon_fodder]

lol, LOVE selective memories.

Remember the dot com bust?  That was wholly under Clinton and Bush could do nothing about it.

Clinton contributed more to the Sub Prime cluster than Bush did.

The surpluses that were projected under Clinton never really showed up.

Not to mention Clinton enjoyed the emergence of an entirely new market in the Internet.  It's not every year or even every 25 years that a new industry shows up.  Contrary to what Al Gore said, he did NOT in fact "take the initiative, of creating the internet."

This should not be seen as a defense of Bush (handouts are not tax cuts.  Tax cuts and continue borrowing is not a good policy.  Mission NOT accomplished).

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

It won't work, of course. And the Repubs are about to run another guy who "doesn't know much about economics" but is willing to talk about another 100 years of war. And approximately half of Americans will vote for him!

Let's remember how the tax INCREASES Clinton pushed through just "ruined" the economy during the entire 1990s, while Bush's tax CUTS have gotten us where we are now.


"When the power of love overcomes
the love of power the world will know peace."

 Jimi Hendrix

One of my musician friends uses that Jimi quote as the signature line of his emails.

None of the three candidates appear to be very firm on troop withdrawl.  If McCain wins, it's an extension of Bush's time frame, if it's Clinton or Obama, it's what they were stuck with.  Regardless of who's version we believe, it's still going to shake out the same.

A lot of the economic "problems" though are centered on a shakey housing market from the permissiveness of Clinton's housing edicts.  Many others are centered on the high cost of oil, which to an extent is a result of a weakening dollar but not entirely.

[FOTD]

You guys just keep sippin on that kool aid....

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

You guys just keep sippin on that kool aid....

That's it!  The logic of your argument and facts presented make a very stirring point.  You've convinced me.

[YoungTulsan]

They must cut spending.  I repeat, they must cut spending.

Don't rag on tax cuts by themselves.  There is nothing wrong with letting people keep their money.  You are playing perfectly into the farce of big government when you look at all of the problems we have today being a result of low taxes.  Low taxes are good.  But you have to cut spending.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

They must cut spending.  I repeat, they must cut spending.

Don't rag on tax cuts by themselves.  There is nothing wrong with letting people keep their money.  You are playing perfectly into the farce of big government when you look at all of the problems we have today being a result of low taxes.  Low taxes are good.  But you have to cut spending.

Anyone can cut taxes. The challenge is holding deficits constant while you're cutting taxes. Reagan and Bush Jr (aka Cheney's beyatch) failed at holding deficits constant. That is a fact. Don't even argue with that point. If you argue it just means that you are too ideological or ignorant. On the other hand, Clinton balanced the budget while keeping a growing economy. He demonstrated that he was serious about fiscal responsibility and businesses liked that and invested which kept the economy growing. We need to increase taxes whether we like it or not to pay for Republican wars which far exceed welfare payments (that is a fact - again don't argue with the facts), so lets stick it to the very rich. We have to pay for Iraq - how do you want to pay for it besides sticking it to the next generation via huge deficits? If you don't like taxes, keep spending down by opposing unnecessary wars. Vote libertatrian if you don't like the democrats, but republicans are just plain stupid. Yes, the national debt continued to rise during Clinton, but at a much slower rate. Clinton's administration did an outstanding job cutting deficits over his tenure. Clinton inherited huge deficits from Reagan and Bush.

Deficits = Government Revenues - Government Spending

National Debt = Sum of all previous deficits plus the interest

Republican Presidents have been pathetic at fiscal responsibility over the past 27 years. That is a fact! Deficits rose under Reagan then Bush Senior then Little Bush. If you care about fiscal responsibility then you must punish the party that has increased our National Debt. Accept the facts!

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

They must cut spending.  I repeat, they must cut spending.

Don't rag on tax cuts by themselves.  There is nothing wrong with letting people keep their money.  You are playing perfectly into the farce of big government when you look at all of the problems we have today being a result of low taxes.  Low taxes are good.  But you have to cut spending.

So this is something I've been thinking about since moving to OK a couple of months ago:  (Let it never be said that moving to an adversarial  -- read: uber-conservative -- environment doesn't encourage innovative thoughts in the liberal mind.)  

There's a lot of reliance on the "cut taxes to shrink government" idea, and I'm starting to wonder if depriving the government of revenue is the best tool in the toolbox.  It seems extraordinarily imprecise.

Because look:  like with Bush's tax cuts, the lack of revenue affects departments across the board.  Homeland Security kept its coffers full, but other departments surely didn't, from the EPA to the Transportation department (remember that bridge that collapsed in MN?) to Department of Education (lots of unfunded No Child Left Behind mandates), etc.  

My point is, reducing government spending isn't a bad idea in itself, but reducing tax receipts alone isn't the most effective way to address the problem, because it will affect good and bad programs alike.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

They must cut spending.  I repeat, they must cut spending.

Don't rag on tax cuts by themselves.  There is nothing wrong with letting people keep their money.  You are playing perfectly into the farce of big government when you look at all of the problems we have today being a result of low taxes.  Low taxes are good.  But you have to cut spending.

So this is something I've been thinking about since moving to OK a couple of months ago:  (Let it never be said that moving to an adversarial  -- read: uber-conservative -- environment doesn't encourage innovative thoughts in the liberal mind.)  

There's a lot of reliance on the "cut taxes to shrink government" idea, and I'm starting to wonder if depriving the government of revenue is the best tool in the toolbox.  It seems extraordinarily imprecise.

Because look:  like with Bush's tax cuts, the lack of revenue affects departments across the board.  Homeland Security kept its coffers full, but other departments surely didn't, from the EPA to the Transportation department (remember that bridge that collapsed in MN?) to Department of Education (lots of unfunded No Child Left Behind mandates), etc.  

My point is, reducing government spending isn't a bad idea in itself, but reducing tax receipts alone isn't the most effective way to address the problem, because it will affect good and bad programs alike.

Problem 1 with our gov't is it has grown so large, it's a near insurmountable task to figure where the waste is.  

What is the incentive for any bureaucrat to ferret out which of his or her co-workers we could do without on the gov't payroll?  How many wasteful programs could be eliminated if the government had a limit on tax revenue and on borrowing capacity?  Priorities would become clear real quick.

[YoungTulsan]

Notice my emphasis was on CUT SPENDING, rather than just cut taxes and let god sort it out.  I realize deficits are what are killing us right now.  But deficits are first are foremost the result of SPENDING, not the result of NOT ENOUGH TAXES.

Cut spending!

Edit, I have decided my post will have more emphasis if I add "That is a fact" to the end of it.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71Problem 1 with our gov't is it has grown so large, it's a near insurmountable task to figure where the waste is.  

What is the incentive for any bureaucrat to ferret out which of his or her co-workers we could do without on the gov't payroll?  How many wasteful programs could be eliminated if the government had a limit on tax revenue and on borrowing capacity?  Priorities would become clear real quick.

Yes, all things being equal, incentive-through-budget-cuts would encourage a more efficient government . . . but all things aren't equal. Pressure to reform isn't distributed uniformly. For instance, the military is almost completely exempt from cuts.  They alway get the increases they want with little or no oversight. Politically, forcing austerity on the military results in charges of "gutting" the armed forces (cf. Mr. Clinton), yet we're talking the largest budgetary slice of the federal pie.  

At the same time,the NIH hasn't had a funding increase in five years.  That's only one example, of course; if you look, you can see cuts across almost all of the "minor" bureaucracies, everything from consumer protection, land use, the arts, the sciences, national infrastructure (roads, bridges, airports), etc.  But the military and DHS -- both massive bureaucracies in their own right -- aren't subjected to the same "incentivizing" as the rest of the government.

[Conan71]

I'm still of the belief that if you want to see where spending is flat or increased, look at which lobbies are spending the most money in Washington.  

If I had a $180K per year job which afforded lots of respect, power, and perks the average citizen could only dream of, I'd certainly try to keep the people who keep me in office happy.  

Everyone wants something out of the government.  Legislators want to get key projects passed for their constituents and for the interests of lobbyist's clients.  That's what keeps them in office- spending government money to keep everyone else happy.

I think it's a shame Coburn gets lampooned so hard for being a budget hawk.  If we had about 99 more Coburns (fiscally-speaking) in the Senate, we probably would cut spending by a very good margin.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

They must cut spending.  I repeat, they must cut spending.

Don't rag on tax cuts by themselves.  There is nothing wrong with letting people keep their money.  You are playing perfectly into the farce of big government when you look at all of the problems we have today being a result of low taxes.  Low taxes are good.  But you have to cut spending.

So this is something I've been thinking about since moving to OK a couple of months ago:  (Let it never be said that moving to an adversarial  -- read: uber-conservative -- environment doesn't encourage innovative thoughts in the liberal mind.)  

There's a lot of reliance on the "cut taxes to shrink government" idea, and I'm starting to wonder if depriving the government of revenue is the best tool in the toolbox.  It seems extraordinarily imprecise.

Because look:  like with Bush's tax cuts, the lack of revenue affects departments across the board.  Homeland Security kept its coffers full, but other departments surely didn't, from the EPA to the Transportation department (remember that bridge that collapsed in MN?) to Department of Education (lots of unfunded No Child Left Behind mandates), etc.  

My point is, reducing government spending isn't a bad idea in itself, but reducing tax receipts alone isn't the most effective way to address the problem, because it will affect good and bad programs alike.

Problem 1 with our gov't is it has grown so large, it's a near insurmountable task to figure where the waste is.  

What is the incentive for any bureaucrat to ferret out which of his or her co-workers we could do without on the gov't payroll?  How many wasteful programs could be eliminated if the government had a limit on tax revenue and on borrowing capacity?  Priorities would become clear real quick.

(neo-con motto)
"reduce the size of the US government until it will drown in a bathtub of water". Nordquistyour