I think RM95 was referring more to the way Bush is always bandying his faith and Christian values around like a frat boy after a panty raid. Not necessarily the 10 commandments, but the whole Christian hoo haa in general. Not that I have anything against Christians, but they're not the only ones living in the United States. Furthermore, I think the three you cited as evidence of good laws are the only three worth incorporating into law anyway. So three, does not consitute most. (In case anyone's wondering, the other seven are no other gods, no graven images, no adultery, no coveting, no hating your parents, no name in vain, and blue sunday.) ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M.
The taglines just happen to coincide fairly neatly with the points I wanted to make. As you can see I provided specific examples to how they applied. Obviously you are leaning toward the dems so, if you read my original post it was specifically not directed at you. I was trying to simplify for undecided posters. Also, what makes you think that I want to buy everyone else healthcare. As far as public transit and education are concerned, they are funded primarily by regional government, not federal. So forgive me if I do not want Gore telling me to buy middle income families health insurance and support starving artists. ------------------ Don't come in Bullard's house!
Hydra, No, sorry, I am not leaning towards the Dems. I think that Gore sucks as well (as I said in my earlier post). I dislike the party as a whole also. My views cannot be neatly tied into one package of rhetoric. My original intent was to make a general response to your oversimplification of the much larger issues this thread was trying to address. I never assumed that you would want to spend your money to help others - that was my point. Getting your $500 back is more important to you than having all of the benefits of a strong social structure. I am aware that many responsibilities are delegated to the states, but they get money from us as well, I was speaking to all levels of government (does not mean just the one big thing). Anyway, Bush will win and you will get your "big return" so this is mostly pointless. ------------------ Sometimes I Get Sad !
Wow! Screw the poor and the sick, eh? That's cool. You sound like a libertarian. Less government; more individual rights. Now, on a more general note, one thing that neither candidate has really addressed is the fact that most economic analysts predict a decline in the economy over the next several years. We won't have surpluses as large as both candidates seem to think we'll have. So the question arises, is it safe to cut taxes or spend a lot on social programs? IMHO it is irresponsible to do too much of either, when the money could be rolled over to chip into the national debt. First, let's be sure everyone knows the difference between the debt and the deficit. The debt is that multi-trillion dollar bill that we have borrowed from banks from years of deficit spending (read: Reaganomics). The surplus is any money left over from the annual budget after all the spending for that year has been done. If we spend all of that money and then some, we create a deficit. Now, you should believe that tax money is your money, but you should also believe that the debt is your debt also. If you have a surplus, you should spend at least some of it on social programs that need improving (education, health care, etc.) and save some more to pay down the debt. The $100-200 extra tax cut that Joe average is going to get is a small price to pay for this. Heck, if you know how to do your taxes right in the present system (read: write-offs), new tax cuts really won't help you that much anyway. As you might be able to tell, I plan to vote for Gore. This isn't necessarily that I'm especially pro-Gore, but that I'm really anti-Bush (we already tried the smart Bush, let's skip the stupid one ). When, Bush says he "trusts People", that is just a bunch of rhetoric also. And now for the unbiased advice to the undecided: If you want your taxes cut without a significant increase in social spending, or are against new gun laws, or are pro-life, Bush is your man. If you want more social spending on education, health care, and social security with more tax exmeptions for the middle and lower classes only, and want new gun laws that would require mandatory trigger locks and enforced waiting periods at gun show, and are pro-choice, Gore is your man. Hope this helps ------------------ [This message has been edited by Launch Pad (edited October 21, 2000).]
It's taken me a while to get back to this thread and there have been a lot of good points made. Still, I think the basics of my arguement are correct. Since there are many points to address I won't try to go back and match my response to particular individuals 1. I agree that economic growth is the primary driving force that gave us the budget surplus but still goverment revenue is primarily derived from taxes whether they be income taxes, consumption taxes or various tariffs. The economic boom however has not been helped by the current levels of taxation. It is not a result of present taxation policies and could well be greater if tax rates were lower overall. 2. The fact that there is a surplus now does not mean that the government has earned the right to continue taxation at the same or a greater level in an attempt to ensure a surplus in the future. Also, how does the fact that we have acheived a budget surplus automatically give the government the right to increase it's budget for the coming years to spend that surplus? As stated before, this budget surplus is not the result of responsible fiscal policy. The federal government's budget now is larger than it has ever been and has historically grown at a rate that far outpaces inflation and other cost increases. 3. I'm all for eliminating the national debt but the debt is largely the result of years of deficit spending enacted by administrations of both major parties. Relying on projected surpluses which may or may not be realized will not garantee elimination of the national debt. If the national debt is the result of overspending and other poor fiscal management practices then it simply makes sense to solve the problem PRIMARILY by reversing/reforming those practices. If our federal budget is larger than ever and continues growing then a simple economic downturn will result in a new round of deficit spending since tax revenues will fall along with the economic downturn. 4. Projected surpluses are just that - projected. They have not been realized. Present projections are based upon currently enacted levels of spending and taxation and on current economic forecasts. In other words, the projected surplus is the government's forecast of how much revenue it will collect above what it needs to operate (including currently projected spending increases). I fail to see how the government has the right to maintain such a surplus with plans to spend it all. I fail to see how the government has the right to use such a surplus for debt elimination without correcting the behavior and policies that caused the debt. If the government collects above what it needs to operate it IS over taxation, especially when the federal budget grows each year in spite of the amount of revenue the government collects. 5. An overall reduction of income tax rates is not "spending the surplus". Once again you cannot spend what you don't have. It is an act that will allow all taxpayers to keep more of their future earnings and MAY reduce the amount of future surpluses. If the government and the Federal Reserve manage the economy properly, it could also spur the economy, sustain the boom and lead to equal or greater surpluses in the future. Either way the government needs to generate surpluses in a fiscally responsible manner. As long as a surplus (projected or otherwise) is used as an excuse to increase the federal budget we are no better off. As the federal budget grows the taxpayer's obligation to fund that budget grows. That obligation doesn't magically disappear when the economy goes South. The more money committed to fund federal programs, the more likelyhood taxes will be raised at some point to meet those commitments. 6. Both Gov. Bush or VP Gore are proposing increases to the federal budget. Gov. Bush is proposing smaller spending increases, a reduction in overall tax rates and elimination of some taxes. That is far short of what I think needs to be done but is at least a smaller step in the wrong direction. ------------------
Since this post would be really lengthy, if I quoted you JT, I'll just number my response to your list. 1) Cutting taxes will not necessarily fuel economic growth. Just because people have money does not guarantee that they will spend it. Also, keep these three words in mind: trickle down economics. In theory, this large tax cut for the wealthy was supposed to have fueled the economy by creating new better paying jobs, but as many critics complained, it just didn't trickle down. Furthermore, don't forget that the government subsidzes many small and large businesses with the tax money they collect. 2) Once the government has a surplus, they do not automatically have the right to continue taxation at the current levels. If, however, the constituents that elected those officials call for improvement for certain problems, then yes, the government does have the right to spend the surplus. That's why there are so many Congressman and Senators. 3) The national debt will not go away unless you pay it. You can run the budget as optimally as possible and end up with surpluses every year and that won't mean anything concerning the debt, unless you actually pay it. 4) Okay, I agree with most of what you're saying here. Projected surpluses are indeed based on projections. The parts I disagree with relate to part 5. 5) "An overall reduction of income tax rates is not 'spending the surplus'." Actually, it really is. If the goverment chooses to give the people a refund in the form of a big tax cut, then that is money that will not be collected until taxes are raised again. Now, looking back to part 4, these tax cuts will based on projected surpluses. If the economy takes a downslide, then you still will only be able to collect taxes after the cut and will be in a deficit. Let me give you an example. Let's say I mow your lawn and I charge $50 a week (i.e. total projected taxes). Materials and labor only account for $40 a week (i.e. total projected spending), so I decide to spend an additional $3 a week (i.e. new spending program) on a new fertilizer and drop my price by $7 (i.e. tax cut) (total $43). All of sudden, Hell breaks out in the middle East and gas and oil prices skyrocket. The fertilzer also gets more expensive (i.e. economic downturn). Suddenly, my total cost is $47 and now I have a $4 loss of profit (i.e. a deficit). Had I not given you a $7 drop in price (i.e. a tax cut), I would still be able to meet my costs (i.e. actual, not projected, spending). 6) Did you know that many economists (ABC News) have noted that the combined amount of Dubya's tax cut and spending is greater than Gore's spending and tax relief plan and is more likely to create a deficit, if the economy takes a downturn? Remember Reagan? He cut taxes a lot and you can credit him with a lot of the national debt. So yes, tax cuts can be dangerous if not implemented responsibly. ------------------
Actually, you can blame the lax enforcement of banking laws in the S&L industry that created much of the budget deficits of the late '80s and early '90s. And it was the increases in spending, not the tax decreases that were the problem much of the rest of the time. Taxes collected increased dramatically throughout the '80s because the Laffer Curve actually did work just like Arthur Laffer said it would. And Trickle Down Economics actually does Trickle Down. When I, as a rich guy, buy my yacht, that money doesn't evaporate, it enters the economy and creates wealth for the yacht seller and yacht builders and on and on through the multiplier effect. And since tax increases are a drag on the economy, tax cuts are, in general, more likely to cause greater economic development. Lower taxes are a stimulous. And raising taxes in 1990 was one of the reasons the recession was as bad as it was. But since we had the high spending and the S&L bailouts, we spend too much of our budget every year on debt service. If it were up to me, I'd rather keep the tax rate the same (it's not hurting the economy. And a tax rebate could be cancelled out by higher interest rates to keep inflation in check) and lower the overall debt. There's no need to pay the whole thing off, but paying on the debt would take some pressure off of interest rates and probably have a greater good effect on the economy than a tax cut would. (And then in the future, the government wouldn't need as much money to balance the budget. The amount of the budget that just goes to interest on the debt in obscene.) We'd also probably be better off if we closed some more loopholes in the tax code rather than opening more up. The simpler the tax code, the better. ------------------ Houston Sports Board
Whereas the lax enforcement of banking laws certainly exacerbated the problems, the bad combination of huge tax cuts and large amounts of spending on defense is really the predominant factor of why the national debt was nearly tripled during the 80's. Taxes collected may have increased during the 80's, but they did not increase proportionately to the increased costs of living and need for government spending. Whatever your belief on economic policy may be, you have to admit that Reagan's 8 years of deficit spending meant that he either needed to raise taxes or cut spending. Since his spending arguably won the Cold War, his taxation policies were the problem. The problem is that it doesn't trickle down very far. The yacht seller and manufacturer in your example makes a larger profit margin, but that doesn't mean the janitor that mops the floors of the yacht dealer is going to see any pay increases. In fact, the number of people living below the poverty level actually increased every year in the 80's. The fact that Reaganomics wasn't working can be seen by the necessary implementaion of the 1986 Tax Reform Act which closed a half of a trillion dollars in shelters and loopholes. Furthermore, when Clinton signed another tax raise on the wealthy in 1993, the economy still continued to boom. I agree with this last part whole-heartedly. Well said. Thanks for the discussion. I don't necessarily agree with all your points (of course, the experts never agree either), but its always nice to have an intelligent discussion to get the view-points of others. ------------------
Not to speak for rimbaud, but I think the whole point here is that a lot of us have more money than we really need, but we always think we need more, and it's our God-given right as Americans that we should always be able to make more and keep it, that's what we fought the British for after all. I made more money last year than both my parents ever did in one year even though my dad worked two jobs. They had seven kids. I have none. When I was in elementary school I ate free school lunches because of our financial situation. There are a lot of people who might have a problem with that, wondering why their tax dollars should pay for someone else's kid to eat. Would anyone say that my parents weren't working hard enough? No, but they might say it was my parents' fault for having so many kids. Why does it matter so much to people how much of a tax break they're getting? I pay a crap load in taxes every year, and I don't expect that to change. Just budget around it. ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M.
Tax revenues increased far beyond the inflation rate and the increased costs of living. You can argue what is considered the "need" for government spending. But there is no reason that the deficits ended up as high as they were (though they were coming down after the '86 tax rerform act, which closed loopholes and collected even more taxes, which is another thing that was supposed to be part of the Reaganomics plan. The S&L bailout just managed to reverse the trend of shrinking deficits and made for the largest single year deficits in history.) As for the tax increase in 1993 not harming the economy. It did hurt the economy. For every dollar that I spend in taxes, that another dollar that doesn't go to investment or to products or to the efficient market. Many economists note that the growth rate in the early '90s should've been higher than it was (and it actually was slower going than it had been at the very end of the Bush term). We were able to overcome the tax increase (which was, despite the Republican hemming and hawing, a relatively minor tax increase) with amazing increased efficiences in productivity that allowed for sustained growth without inflation, and therefore, lower interest rates. But like I said, we're better off as a nation cutting the debt than we are cutting taxes. ------------------ Houston Sports Board
Mad Max, Oh good, it has been a while since we have talked. You missed my point. I was basically saying that taxes, in our current system, are not all bad. It seems more important to some to get some minimal amount back instead of the gov'ment using that money to improve schools or health care, etc. I do not care how much the 4 person family making $40,000 a year gets back - their extra money will not improve their children's healthcare, etc. A poor person who gets a small tax cut (based on the amount they make) will not then be able to use that $50 to have good health care. Point was, people with a little money are more concerned with getting more back than having an improved society. ------------------ EZLN
That's close, but not totally true. You're right about inflation actually decreasing during the eighties, but since the trade deficit actually was quadrupled and spending far exceeded collected taxes, the national debt became enormous. You cannot argue that the in spite of the national debt growing nearly 3 times and the government running a huge deficits every year that the government was bringing in enough taxes. Furthermore, one of the obvious effects of trickle-down economics is a greater seperation of wealth (this did indeed happen in the 80's). The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Trickle down economics simply doesn't trickle down to the lower class. The growth rate of the 90's reached record levels. Not only have we "overcome" a tax increase (proof in itself that tax increases aren't crippling to the economy), but we are actually benefitting from it now in the form of budget surpluses. Also, for every dollar that you pay in taxes is a dollar spent of defense (new job opportunities in the military), education (better trained workers), medical care (cheaper and more accessible), subsidization of small businesses (competition drives capitalism), resarch in new technology (innovation is also important in capitalism), and of course paying down the national debt. It's amazing how we have such different view points on what is best for the economy, yet we both still come to the same conclusion. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the rest ------------------
Rimbaud made a point earlier here that I wanted to comment on. In volleying back and forth with another poster he said something to the affect of "you want your tax money back for yourself and you don't want to help anybody else with it." The fundamental problem with that analysis is that if we all get some money back, we all need less help. There is NO Gore middle class tax cut. It simply doesn't exist. I've run my numbers and I save something like $200. That's it. And believe me, I'm WELL within the middle class at this stage of my life (though hopefully that will be changing!). If you don't take the money out of people's pockets in the first place, maybe they won't need federal assistance later. Just a thought. ------------------
