ajwps
Active Member
Mariner said:Bush gave me $600 back last year.
But he increased the national debt by a trillion dollars in the past 4 years.
I believe the national interest payment for that debt is ~$300 billion, or $1000 dollars for each American. For my family of three, that's ~$3000 per annum. Increasing it by a sixth adds $500 to the portion of my taxes that buys me nothing. So he gives me $600 and wastes $500. Less bang for my tax buck. Every Bush tax cut that raises the deficit will be associated with this sort of drag. I'd love to get the figures and do the calculation accurately--what if we're not getting a real tax cut at all?
By the way, I've enjoyed reading the Wall Street Journal in the past two weeks. They're becoming increasingly harsh in their assessments of Bush's tax and spend policies.
From todays editorial page: Republicans have been patting themselves on the back since election day, but maybe they should pay some attention to the pummeling theyve been taking in the past two weeks. Democrats have been scoring by attacking the majority GOP as the party of big, intrusive government... Individual earmarks... total 18,000 this year and add up to $22 billion. The editorial refers to the Appropriations Committeeaka, the College of Cardinals or the Lords of Lard, and concludes, With control of the House, Senate, and White House, Republicans are now going to be held accountable for Congresss decisions. If they talk like conservatives but spend like Democrats, voters may decide to elect the real thing.
WSJ columnist Christopher Wood asks on the same page, For how much longer will American have the luxury of running its own independent monetary policy? His article notes that without the willingness of foreign countries, in particular Asian countries, to buy up our debt (which he says totals 77% of the worlds total current-account deficits, we risk losing our financial independence to the whims of the global marketplace and our creditors. This is an administration driven by ideological supply-siders, not by fiscal conservatives, he says.
A lead article on the Money and Investing page notes that higher gas prices mean that Energy Costs Could Damp Holiday Sales, and fears a lump of coal for an economy largely driven by consumer spending...
So if you don't believe it from me, a Cambridge liberal, maybe you'll believe it from the conservative press. Supply-side economics was tried in the early 80s. It failed. Why are we doint it again?
Mariner.
(By the way, you can't say that the Clinton economic boom was solely due to tech stock bubble. I've never read that anywhere but here. The Dow was far higher at the end of the boom than it was when Clinton took office, so even after the correction, there was a real boom. Look at the jobs added--same thing--there were still more jobs after the boom than before. Were you better off in 1992 or 2000? Are you better off now than 2000? For most people the answer to question one is yes, and for many the answer to question two is no.)
Your posted summed up: ZERO SUM GAIN
Bush raised national debt 1 trillion and so interest on the national debt is 300 million dollars a day or $1000 for each person. Ergo a large deficit. END OF STORY
Forget about
1) 1 trillion dollars spent to American companies creating new jobs
2) New jobs create new American spenders who buy things and good for their families.
3) New jobs for Americans who now pay real IRS taxes back into the government coffers
4) That 1 trillion dollars plus the remainder of the national debt is about 4.5% of the GDP. Not a lot when you look at the whole picture. Take a look at the GDP of most of the socialist European governments including Canada.
You know you have a great idea. To end the US national debt, let all the Democrats pay a proportionately greater share of hard earned income so that those who create prosperity for all can live on your Democratic backs.