I was reacting to Batman's assertion that this was a giving of funds. It was a rebate of what we paid in. We had a surplus. Surlus means they took in too much. So why not give it back to the people who paid it in. Because those people now owe a debt of $4 trillion dollars, courtesy of the people we elected. For example, say you have $50,000 in credit card debt, and get a $300 bonus from work. Is the smart thing to spend it or start paying off your debt? Consider that any debt you don't pay off will go to your kids and you pay annual interest on the debt. The smart thing is to repay the debt where possible. I agree that it's our money. However, it's also our debt that we have to pay off.
Batman Jones said: I don't just blame Bush for the deficit. I blame everyone (Republicans and Democrats) who voted for the biggest tax cut in the history of the world, and one in which the wealthiest five percent of the country got over 90% of the money, at a time when most trusted economists warned it would send us back into deficit spending. If Bush were a Libertarian, arguing only for cutting taxes and never for spending, he would have a better case. He is for spending, too. Repubs and Dems are both for spending -- they just disagree on what merits spending. Neither party is innocent of wasting tax dollars and neither party is innocent of destroying the surplus with one single vote. But the tax cut, which again gave most Americans about $300, was Bush's baby and he will have to defend it come 2004. A truly great post. You completely nailed Khan who is basically spouting econ 101 in a general way or talking in generalities about how presidents have to make choices. BTW ,Khan, Bush and the Republicans were not being Keynesians when they passed the bill to give the budget surplus back to the weatthy 5% at the expense of programs and interest payment deductions and supporting social security ,all of which would have helped the vast majority who who got $300 or in many cases less. Bush's used phony cooked numbers ,that he repeated over and over again in the campaign to say you can have your cake and eat it, too. Gore disputed this over and over agin. The pie in sky scenario of Bush was soon crushed by reality and it was shown that he had converted a surplus to a deficit. Bush then used the economic crisis which was created in large part by the similar phony cooked numbers approach of his Enron and Harkin buddies to talk about how great it is to run a deficit. And you are supporting his rationalization after the fact. Talking about hutzpah. .
It's called income redistribution. That's not what this country was supposed to be about. Nobody asked you to. Again...nobody asked you to. My quarrel is ANYBODY forking over half to the government. In a divorce its fine...but nobody married the government. To give over half is repugnant. But you earned 50. So if you don't start off poor you can't EARN your money???!!! Bizarre. Bill Gates came from an upper middle class family...but you can't tell me he didn't work his ass off to develop the better mousetrap...and now he's worth billions. Sounds like you've got a chip on your shoulder. Why do you hate the rich so much that you want the government to take 50% of every dollar they earn? You just don't think that they should have it because you have deemed that they have too much? Are you the arbitor of who has too much money regardless of how hard they worked to earn it? Garbage really.
Refman, I don't have to trivialize it. It's already trivial. As stated by other posters, we received a rebate of $300 and will have to pay far more as a result of interest on the deficit -- an enormous line item in our budget now that was NOT there before the cut, and exists as a direct result of the cut. I agree it's our money. And how much of it we have to pay in taxes is relative to how well the budget is balanced. Bush has made a bollocks of it, brought back deficit interest, and that $300 rebate is a net loss for the average American, by any standard. We don't need to debate the merits of taxation, because we both agree we should be taxed as little as possible, but that we will have to be taxed some -- I assume you agree we will have to be taxed some because I know you want the government to provide at least basic services such as national security, cops, and certain types of health care for the poor and indigent. I still haven't heard from Khan as to which of these services, which is equal in expense to the tax cut, he would cut. Which one would you cut, to avoid deficit spending? The fact that we had a surplus does not mean we were taxed too much. It meant that there was money for the inevitable economic downturn. It meant there was money for Social Security and Medicare for those who've payed into it. It meant that we would be able to avoid returning to deficit spending and the outrageous interest we'd otherwise pay down a hole. I hope you enjoyed the $300. All that money, all that security, all the strides of the economic boom were squandered by it. And in the face of all that, I'm sorry, but $300 IS trivial. I'm sorry if that offends you. It offends me that I pay into a Social Security fund with every paycheck that will be be all dried up before I can get it back.
True that Bill Gates is one of the excpetions. I'm not saying that only the poor earn their money, but some rich people get richer without earning it. George Bush has yet to run a successful business. He's still made millions as a businessman. He hasn't actually earned any of it. The reason why I don't have a problem with the govt. taking 50% of the riches money is because it helps them as much as anyone else. If the country spends it correctly the united states as a whole would become safer, better educated, more productive, more innovative, healthier and that will benefit everyone Including the people who paid that 50% of their income. Ideally that 50% would be an investment and not just disappearing money.
Of course...I just think it should be a much smaller percentage. But to live in a society requires that we pay in to preserve our freedoms. That just makes sense. These are supposed to be separate funds from the general treasury. You can reduce the income taxes to zero and not affect the amount paid into Social Security and Medicare. The fact that administrtions for DECADES have violated the public trust in this regard isn't really germane to a discussion of income taxes. The problem is that Social Security was supposed to be a temporary fix, but when FDR died nobody wanted to touch any of the initiatives he started to pull us out of the depression. It is also a system which never contemplated the elderly being such a large % of the populace or people living as long as we do now. Sadly, it is an unworkable system in today's world. Various socialistic nations (particularly in Scandanavia) have recently privatized their version of Social Security for these reasons.
Firefighters Won't Boycott Memorial By JONATHAN D. SALANT WASHINGTON (AP) - The International Association of Fire Fighters plans to challenge President Bush's decision to withhold money that would help fire departments, but will not boycott the annual memorial service for fallen firefighters, the union's president said Friday. "We would never ever boycott any of the memorials that are going to honor my members," general president Harold Schaitberger said by phone after the union convention adjourned Friday. "There is nothing this union will do to bring any kind of dishonor or disrespect to the events that are going to be a celebration of their service and sacrifice." The union voted during its Las Vegas assembly to ask Schaitberger to formally protest Bush's decision to withhold $5.1 billion in anti-terrorism funds. The options included boycotting the annual service in memory of fallen firefighters, scheduled for Oct. 6 in Washington. Bush has been invited to speak at the event. Schaitberger rejected any thoughts of staying away from the ceremony. In New York, 343 firefighters lost their lives when terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center Sept. 11. Bush said Friday he had a strong commitment to firefighters, but needed to cut federal spending. "I chose not to spend the $5 billion because, one, we didn't need to and, two, it is important for this country to be fiscally disciplined as our economy begins to recover," Bush said. The withheld funds included $100 million for improvements to communications systems for firefighters, police officers and other emergency personnel. Rescue workers' efforts at the World Trade Center were hindered because the agencies' radios could not communicate with each other. Bush also blocked $90 million for long-term health monitoring of emergency workers at Ground Zero and $150 million for equipment and training grants to fire departments. Schaitberger said the union planned to push Congress to include the money in the spending bills for the federal fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. He said he planned to write a letter of protest to Bush, and would return the videotaped message Bush sent to the firefighters. "We will find the appropriate venue to vent our anger and show our protest," Schaitberger said. The union, which represents 255,000 firefighters, has given almost $2 million to federal candidates since Jan. 1, 1999, with more than 80 percent going to Democrats.
