Discussion in 'Economy' started by Huckleburry, Dec 27, 2004.
Well are they....
Its not just war and tax cuts....its a package......can you continue the war at the current cost of 35 million every 4 hours, (and rising), support a tax cut, privatize social security, balance the budget, and reduce the deficit by half......not likely.
The only way to do this is drop some options (already happening) like tax reform, social security reform is unlikely, and forget about a balanced budget.
If the budget does not include the 80 or so billion that is going to be required very soon for the war, and this 80 billion is asked for in a "supplemental" a short time after the budget is proposed, it is a sham of a budget, totally without any credibility. Back to deficit spending.
We just keep increasing the debt limit, obligating us to payouts far into the future and in ways that we may not think of as advantageous later on. Nothing is for certain and we are limiting our options for the future by the actions that we take that lock us in.
I really dislike it when the shit hits the fan and the excuse is, (from those we put in positions to take responsibility and to know) how could anybody have ever imagined....blah blah blah. It's as obvious as it can be and those who refuse to see it will always have an excuse for being blind, whether it be patriotism, religion, or fear.
You are making a historically unsupportable assumption. You are assuming that a cut in taxes results in a cut in tax revenues. ALL throughout our history, every time the federal government has cut taxes, tax revenues have INCREASED.
While this may be true, which I honestly dont claim to know either way, there is still the problem of overspending. You may get a 3% pay raise but if you spend more by 6% you are overspending. I would like to know how much tax revenue has increased, and what portion of that is due to the tax cuts . Can you backup your statement with any credible sources.. I'm sure compared to increases in spending it is a small amount. Bush was over budget by 10% first year, 10% second year, 3% third year, and I guess hes trying to only go .8 % this year. Even the die hard republicans, that defend the idea of deficit spending, couldn't handle that kind of lack of control.
At least you admit your claims on knowledge are tenuous at best.
I never said that Bush isn't overspending. You and Huck are implying that tax cuts are what are causing the deficit when it is not tax cuts, but overspending that is the problem.
I read the articles......somewhat favorable to taxcuts, but the heritage site quotes are for 1983 to 1993 and adjusted to 1996 dollars ?????? makes it look a little slanted. The suntimes correctly admitted that tax cuts do not in themsleves result in deficits but overspending is the problem....like I said a 3%raise and a 6% increase in spending results in a deficit.
I saw the new budget proposal and it is for 3.9% increase in spending and DOES NOT include the costs of the war in afghanistan and iraq....how realistic is that? I personally prefer to tax and spend rather that spend and owe.
Nah, keep spending. Fuck it, lets start using gold bullets with little pictures of jesus hand carved in each one. That will teach those dirty muslims how a real religion kills with style. After all its our kids not us who are going to end up with the bill!
Big L, going back nearly a month! Can't find anything else? Loser! :alco:
Separate names with a comma.