What amazes me is how transparent the Democrat’s argument against the tax cut is, and yet no one is calling them on it.
Here’s my beef: The Democratic line against the tax cut is that, A) the rich will benefit more than the poor, and B) it’s reckless, because the surpluses may not materialize.
It’s the second argument that is so transparent and phony. See, the Democrats are NOT advocating taking this money and putting it under a mattress for a rainy day. The Democratic proposal is a tax cut of 900 billion or so. So what do they want to do with the rest? SPEND IT. They want to take the surplus, and earmark 1/3 for debt reduction, 1/3 for a tax cut, and 1/3 for new program spending.
Now, which plan is more reckless? If the surpluses don’t materialize, which will be easier - to raise taxes again to compensate for the cut, or to cut the funding for a whole new class of entitlements the Democrats want to impose?
The dirty secret here is that it is impossible to cut government spending in today’s political environment. Even Reagan didn’t cut spending - he just slowed the increase.
The Democrats are on the wrong side of the ‘fiscal prudence’ argument, yet the Republicans are letting them get away with it. This completely baffles me.
One more thing: If, in a time of multi-trillion dollar surpluses and low unemployment you guys can’t cut taxes by a measly 6%, then it’s time that you accept that significant tax reduction will never happen in your lifetime.
Guinistasia: Fine. Give the money back, then make the political case for it and let the politicians take it to the people. The taxes collected now were not supposed to go to new programs. The Democrats basically see a way to get what they want without having to go through the political fighting to get it.
How would you feel if the Republicans planned to raise taxes to pay for a new universal health care system, but once they had the money said, “Oh, it turns out we don’t need that, so we’re going to use the money to build a space defense.” I’ll bet you’d be pretty choked. Get your money back, then make those damned Republicans make the case for a space defense and take it to the people.
Chance: You can only pay down the debt so fast. Bush claims that his budget pays down the debt as fast as possible without incurring penalties for buying back long-term debt instruments before they mature. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Ah…Sam, where is the part about money for Social Security and Medicare or are you grouping that in with “new program spending” for the purposes of your argument?
It is extraordinary to me…although I don’t really know why, that so many people are so easily sucked in.
Please. This whole rax cut thing is ridiculous. How about, before we start playing stupid games with a couple hundred bucks per family to placate them and make them think we are doing something meaningful, we pay off ALL OUR DEBT? What an idea! What a wacky notion! How liberal of me, eh? Where are all the fiscal conservatives, screaming about the country taking care of it’s debts before it starts spending money it doesn’t have? $5,726,968,823,821.55, to be exact, as of yesterday. To the penny. Per the national treasury. http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm . YOUR family’s share is roughly $70-80,000. A helluva lot more than what you’ll be putting in your pocket with this FAAAAAAbulous tax plan.
So? Fiscal conservatives? You gonna say something? YOOOOO HOOOOOOO…HEEELLLLOOOO… Anyone out there?
Oh wait. I see the mistake I made! I was confusing “fiscally conservative” with "Fiscally **responsible ** " Silly me. Never mind. :rolleyes:
I’ll take Clinton pardoning Marc Rich in exchange for campaign contributions any day over Dubya giving away the nation’s kitty to fatcat assholes in exchange for campaign contributions. Which is more harmful to you and me and future generationsx? One white collar creep getting to come back home instead of skiing in Switzerland, or the whole damn country suffering for years, decades…hmmm… Not a tough call for me, can’t begin to understand how it is for anyone with a lick of sense.
Actually, I agree with that. The reason I supported Bush’s plan over Gore’s was that neither of them had much intention of using the surplus to pay off the debt.
I don’t know everyone’s tax situation but I helped a friend of my wife with her taxes last year (the friend). They, as a family, made under $30K (I don’t remember the exact figure). Because of the Earned Income Credit, they got back more from the Federal Government than they had paid in.
Now, I hear people say “only the rich are getting a tax break, what about the poor?”. How do you give a bigger break to someone who got back more than they paid in?
Ok, show me a single year in the last 50 where the government reduced overall spending. There were two recessions since 1981, both of them resulted in huge deficits, and not once in this time did the government manage to reduce its spending by one nickel. Hell, during the times when there were huge deficits the government couldn’t even manage to kill pure pork like the National Helium Reserve, the Rural Electrification Administration, or the Wool and Mohair Subsidy.
In government-speak, a ‘cut’ in spending is an increase in spending that is below the rate of inflation. An actual cut in overall spending in actual dollars is unimaginable.
This is the dirty secret of the Democratic Leadership. If they can increase spending, it creates new entitlements. Then if the economy tanks, they can cry that more taxes are need and STILL raise taxes. Then you get huge government growth, increased power for all those people who think they are smarter than you are and therefore should run your life.
It’s also why the Democrats are now so gung-ho about deficit reduction. The existance of the debt is a major stumbling block to Democrats when they want to increase program spending.
So, given their druthers, Democrats would like to use the surplus to, A) Increase spending on new programs and faster increases in spending on existing programs, B) reduce the debt, and C) cut taxes.
But A) is by far the preferred approach. Democrats have been dragged kicking and screaming into the fiscal responsibility camp, when they realized that the only alternative to it was a cut in taxes and proportional decrease in their power in Washington.
You are throwing out a lot of claims about spending vs. paying down the debt in the Dem’s plan and all that. I asked you an honest question about it already. How about you actually back up your statements with some real evidence? You may be right but just quoting what you may have heard does not make it correct. One would have to take the Bush and Dems tax plans and compare them side by side to see if they are really using all of the money they save by having a smaller tax cut on new spending. Maybe they are but saying it’s so doesn’t make it so and we like to deal here with facts not fictions.
The true beauty of tax cuts is its magical flexibility, at least in Repub eyes.
Test your short term memory: exactly how long ago were the Repubs shouting “We have a huge surplus, the economy is great! We can afford a whopping big tax cut!”
Now,its “The economy is tanking! We have to have a whopping big tax cut to save it!”
Next? “Hoof and mouth disease will devestate our agriculture! We have to have a whopping big tax cut!”
Taxes? If I can have a reasonable chance to live in a country where no child is homeless, no child goes to a rundown school, no child need miss a meal, TAX MY ASS OFF! It’s only money.
Comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable. If that’s class war, so be it. We are governed, to a large degree, by professing Christians. Let them act like it.
The democrats did just that for the last 8 years “they taxed your ass off” and there is still homeless children, there are still run down schools, and kids still missing meals. You see I would like to see the same things as you. But put the charity where it belongs to the individual and churches not a corupt no character individual like the last liberal y’all put in office.
I’m sorry guy but we live in a capitalistic country if you want socialism, move to China.
Give’em a chance we gave your boys a chance and they didn’t squat but ruin the dignity and trust we had in the office of the president.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Wildest Bill *
**Originally posted by elucidator *
I’ll take your word for that. After all, you type with an accent. Might well be another recovering Texan, our record for veracity is unblemished. Well, mostly.
Oh, please! Not that old “Love It or Leave It” crapola!
“Well, Mr. Paine, you live in a monarchy. If you don’t like it, why don’t you move?”
No virgin is ever elected Queen of the Whores. Dignity? Trust? Nixon? Put those words together in some way that won’t make you puke. Finally, it isn’t their fault. It’s ours.
Um, Bill, not to squash on your argument, but federal tax rates now are at the low end of post WWII rates. I’m not going to get into the rest of this argument; just wanted to correct you on the facts.
**
Yes, it was. JFK was also the last Democratic president to make a large cut in income taxes.
Squink:
Thank you for that non-partisan analysis of our economy. It went in the tank because of the business world’s lack of confidence in Bush. Things were steaming along to perfection, until noon on Jan. 20. :rolleyes:
“Oh no! We may not be taxed as high or regulated as much. AHHHHHHhhhhhhh!!!”
Nah, it probably started back in December, once the Supreme Court ran down the clock and everyone knew that Dubya was going to be “President”. I think the abrupt drop in the Consumer Confidence Index is an indication of this.
More like, “Oh no! We’re getting an unelected brainless moron in the White House! AHHHHHHhhhhhhh!!!”
Night Two of My Bacardi as Bilharzia treatment series, some obserations.
A thought:
None of the partisan mud slinging by either side here has done one thing to shed light on current economic conditions. Not the righties nor the lefties. I’m more than slightly disappointed. Reminds me of the late, great Florida dispute.
May I suggest something slightly more original.
One, always the favorite observation by those out of power, but quite true. The President, and the Congress in general, has only indirect and often unclear effects on the economy. Current problems, or lack thereof, are largely due to structural issues, or more bluntly, working out a speculative bubble.
Two, a discussion of tax policy (I think, despite the OP’s habitually fractured logic and English, this is) might, just for the novelty value alone, want to leave aside appeals to emotion, teary eyed calls to and ultimately unverifiable stories of starving children or impoverished inheritors. Instead, again, just for novelty value, tackle questions of aggragate savings rates, capital accumulation and long term growth as related to our tax policy … ah never mind, I’ve had waaaaay too much Bacardi – perhaps the wiggly bastards are dead now.
But still, these threads never seem to grapple with the real issues…
Rum, is, regretably, ineffective in that regard. I recommend retsina, a Greek “wine” that is appartely derived from creosote, tastes similar to the way Pine-Sol smells. Imbibe enough to ensure yourself of a massive wine hangover, and the Bilharzia will flee in panic.
Water, I know I know, but, there’s god damned hospitality thing. And I have no idea where to get waders here. Wine. Well you know I don’t have much choices here, all in all. Either frightfully expensive or highly suspicious local produce which sometimes induces blindness. Odd, so does…
Bill,
The 80’s were good, but when I was kid everything seem good. As for Reaganomics Not so good.
The Democrats did work on the national debt. Oh man, you’ll have to excuse me I’ll need to go party with my friends the swinging chads and the hanging chads and whatever. Its been a total fiasco since Dec. and sorry but I just can’t take anymore.
Bill when the last time you clap when you read , let see well one of Ferris takes.
Quote:Give’em a chance we gave your boys a chance and they didn’t squat but ruin the dignity and trust we had in the office of the president.