Since neither candidate really seems to want to tell the complete truth on this issue let me try. This is my perspective so by all means correct me if you think I am wrong. First of all what is the definition of a budget surplus? Generally it is having left over money at the end of the year because you either spent less than you had budgeted to spend or you received more revenue than you anticipated. Simple enough right? When we talk about the government however, we have to look at the issue of where the government gets the vast majority of its revenue. The answer? Taxation. Now since our government has recorded a "budget surplus" we need to ask the fundamental question of how our government got that surplus. Did they manage their affairs wisely, frugally and reduce spending to generate the surplus? The answer? No. Then where did the vast majority of the budget surplus come from? The answer? Over-taxation. Now VP Gore accuses Gov. Bush of "spending the surplus on a tax cut to benefit the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans." Not so. He isn't "spending the surplus" at all. Gov. Bush is proposing to reduce the rate of taxation for all. Gov. Bush claims to be "giving back some of the surplus to those who pay the bills." Not so. He isn't proposing to give anything back. Not one dime of the tax money already collected will be given back to taxpayers. As stated, he is simply proposing to reduce the rate of over-taxation. VP Gore, as I understand his proposals has no intention to reduce the amount of over-taxation. He simply has proposed more government spending to use up the additional funds. Gov. Bush will increase spending too, but not by nearly as much as VP Gore. Now the question is whether you believe that the government has the right to spend every cent it takes in and has no responsibility to reduce over-taxation when it runs a surplus in that manner. I for one don't. I'm not pleased with either candidate in many areas but this area I would have to give to Gov. Bush. His plan is by no means what I would like to see but at least he is proposing to reduce the rate of over-taxation. VP Gore's plan requires you to qualify for his various proposed tax cuts. In simple terms, if you don't qualify you must alter your behavior/lifestyle in order to qualify. So much for individual liberty. ------------------
It's been recently reported that both the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Agriculture are unable to account for BILLIONS of dollars. Ridiculous. The government will not allow an audit.
I'm a Director in DC, and in my history of handling budgets, I can tell you where I think the surplus comes from. It's not a matter of having saved money and having been careful. It's not a matter of over taxation. Those numbers are less important than what they have projected in investments. To get the surplus we have likely projected additional revenue that we cannot reasonably project. With a strong economy they have projected an econmic boom. I have nothing against projecting success, but they should have been careful when doing so. They may not get it. the Federal Government has also projected less debt. Thus no interest on that debt. Well, as long we make those payments then we do have less debt., but that all hinges on a strong economy. The budget means little. The actual bottom line is what you need to look at. Unfortunately, we won't know that until then end of the fiscal year(s). Anybody can make the budget appear good. Even the worst Directors (thank you), but the bottom line doesn't lie. ------------------ humble, but hungry. [This message has been edited by PhiSlammaJamma (edited October 18, 2000).]
PhiSlammaJamma, So just to clarify -- and I'm assuming there is some kind of surplus, or eveyone in Washington has their head up... in the clouds. You are saying that much of the surplus is based on projections of economic growth remaining at the current level, intrest rates remaining at the current level, a decline in intrest paid, and stable spending without increases? Sounds like everyone in DC is using fuzzy math! Let's put them all in a lock box! ------------------ Stay Cool... [This message has been edited by dc sports (edited October 18, 2000).]
We haven't even gotten to the point of fuzzy. We are lucky the government is still open to be honest. We are now on our third resolution to continue funding from the previous year. Technically we should be closed, yet again. Nobody will ever hear about that. Not even in DC. The fiscal year begins October 1st. Today only two out of 13 appropriation bills have been signed into law, Military Construction and Defense. By law they should have been signed October 1st. The others are, well, incubating under a chicken light. ------------------ humble, but hungry.
The key to the entire election is this: Gore thinks people need the government to do many things for them. Bush thinks people can do most things for themselves. These are basic party lines and they can be applied to almost any issue. If you are a supporter of either party, vote for that candidate, if not, ask yourself who you would rather make decisions on how to spend your money, congress or you. ------------------ Don't come in Bullard's house!
....I was under the impression that the surplus can only be realized if three things hold true over the next ten years: 1. Zero Population growth 2. Zero inflation 3. The "government’s discretionary spending does not increase" Since none of these are going to happen, then it looks to me like wild bill and sleazy al are just blowing smoke up someone's butt....Imagine that. ------------------
Wrong. The key to this election is that the Democratic candidate will say anything or screw anyone to get elected, while the Republican candidate is too damn stupid to even be considered presidential material. ------------------ I am the b*stard son of LHutz. Huh? Right!
Yeah, like deciding what a woman can do with her own body, or whether two men can get married, or whether the 10 Commandments should be shoved down everyone's throats... ------------------ Cheerleaders are just dancers who've gone r****ded. visit www.swirve.com
RMT, That was funny! I liked how Bush said he wants "Character Training" in all schools. He was talking about bringing morality back to children. Yeah, that is a good idea. Hydra - please do not spout out taglines that have no real meaning. Truth is, both candidates want the government to do a lot of things for people, they just spin it differently. Both guys try so hard to show they will not spend money. Education, for example. Why is that a bad thing? Other countries spend larger %'es of the GDP on education. You have to spend money to do things, right? Confused. ------------------ Talking to a dead hare about art
Did anyone else hear Bush mention faith-based after-school programs ... My niece (she's 6) takes an after school art program in extended day care, and she complains that they just give her images on paper to color and cut out instead of real projects started from scratch. Granted, at least she has an after-school art program to go to. Art, music and p.e. programs get cut all the time so schools can add academic courses and seem more scholarly. I'd hate to see them get cut in favor of religious programs ... the separation of church and state is already a facade. ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M.
What is REALLY funny is any of us honestly believing either one of these clowns will actually make a difference when elected. Now, THAT is funny. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
doesn't anybody remember the little short guy w/ the funny ears? The surplus is a facade. When Reagan was busy defeating communism by excessive military spending in the 80s , he was diverting revenue from Social Security. How's the saying go? Robbing blah? Borrowing from blah? Whatever, he took money from SS and bought M1 tanks (an armored personnel carrier ) knowing he wouldn't have to worry about anything until the baby boomers retired. They're heeee---rreeeeeee. We don't have money to redivert from SS. We certainly shouldn't cut benefits from SS just because somebody got it in their mind that Russians shouldn't wait in long lines. I don't know about your grandparents, but mine worked their entire lives. I'd move back to South Carolina and start another civil war (they're waiting, trust me) before I watched my grandma take a dime less than her due. JT, you mentioned in a separate thread that you are the quintessential 'common man'. Well, 20-8 years ago someone spoke in your name by raising the federal deficit from 200 billion to 5 trillion dollars. Were you really afraid of the soviets that much? Hell if I was. I was picking my nose. I'll also be damned if I find myself at the top of the stack that inherits this bs deficit. Those bums that are 33 years or older are the people that got us into this (by way of their votes). Now is the time to pay down the deficit to take care of the interest rates. Frankly, if the government is not borrowing money from the banks, then the interest rates are lower (b/c of supply & demand). The government doesn't have to borrow money in this scenario: its spend less. Now, conservatives will wave a sparkler at this line and say something about Gore's spending... but how much is education a portion of the federal deficit? Conservatives wasted our time in the 80s with bs criticisms of the NEA and PBS/NPR. I've covered SS and conservatives cannot criticize military spending (the largest). The third largest item is paying off the interest on the deficit. I don't know if you've ever worked on a large scale project, but you can certainly get freebies by gold plating the items that make up tiny effects, or you can tackle big easies for much larger influences (if I can get 100% success on 30% of a project or 20% of 5%, where should I start my efforts?). Obviously, we should pay down the deficits. Noone wins w/ higher interest rates. Your car, your home, EVERYTHING is affected by interest rates. Your arguments may be because of principle rather than for practical reasons, and if so I respect that, though I still disagree (I for one believe in capital punishment (in many cases) even though it costs more than keeping someone alive, so I understand). ------------------ "Everyone I know has a big but... come on Simone, let's talk about your but."
I feel as though I must add a little reality to this thread. I even plan on using some punctuation as to not offend any english majors in our midst. on the surplus: This surplus is the result of approximately 7 years of budget work by the clinton administration. The strong econemy deffinately helped. however the majority fo the budget surplus is a result of good financial planning. we have been paying down the national debt with this surplus for several years now. the fact that everyone is trying to figure out how to spend this "surplus" is crazy yo me. It is only a surplus if not being used. and infact this money has been used. It has been used to pay down the national debt. if we begin to spend this money on tax breaks we are kidding ourselves. thats the same thing as saying that you wont pay your credit card bills in order to give those few thousand back to your boss so he can afford a little luxury temporarily. during this period your debt begins to pile up again in interest. Its just crazy that we have such a huge debt, and it's all Reagan/Bushs' fault. Im so thankfull that someone is interested in paying down the debt. Also Im sure that when the debt is paid off we will have a true budget surplus. Than and only than should there be a tax break. by proposing tax cuts Bush is limiting the goverments ability to pay off that debt. also he clearly stated that he plans on not paying it off. Much hullabaloo is made of the size of gores spending plans, but most of that increce is to pay off the national debt. A cause Im sure you can all see as beneficial. furthermore, those are not new expences. Those are old debts, debts that were created by the financially irresponcible Reagan years.those debts need to be paid off. what kind of world power has a 3 trillion dollar mortgage?? *peace ------------------
I am not a republican. I am not a democrat. But I have an opinion. This is it. 1. The national budget is determined years before it is put into practice. 2. The economy has boomed beyond any and all expectations. Largely driven by the investment market and faith in the industrial and techno economy. 3. This has increased government revenue of untold proportion. 4. The collection of taxes has far exceeded the immediate need for those funds in the budget. This is called a surplus. 5. That money belongs to the people from who it was collected. 6. I know I can budget and plan my own money better than the government. 7. Returning a portion of the surplus to it's rightful owners, and using a portion to cover new immediate needs (budget adjustments) seems fair and equitable. 8. I have no problem giving the wealthiest 1%, who pay 30% or more of all this nation's taxes, back 20% of their money. Especially when I will get back between 30% to 48%. 9. I think having the wealthiest 1% getting back 20% of their tax paid in direct relief will further stimulate the economy and boost it even more. 10. I do not think handing this surplus to those who did not pay the taxes in the first place is fair, equitable or good for the economy. Historically, social programs slow reinvestment in the economy. Any snakeoil salesmen who smiles in my face and tells me it is for my own good that he takes the money I earned and forfeited in taxes in good faith .... money that was ... " oops we may have overprojected the expenditures and underprojected the amount of money we would get a wee bit, ah ... but we are going to give to these people over here because they don't have any" ... well ... where I come from we shoot snakeoil salesmen for a lot less ... we definitely don't elect them to another term in office ... I qualified to pay the taxes including the overtax surplus because I work and earn money. I will not qualify for any new program that Mr. Gore has listed. None. I do not begrudge the community as a whole for needing some of that surplus to even out the opportunities and unforseen difficulties of life. Neither am I reluctant to spend money where future returns in education or health is the goal. But I'll be damned if I let someone take all of it, especially a career politician born with more money than God, who thinks he knows more about earning a real living and spending my money better than I do. I will not let him decide who to give the money to. The main difference between Al and George is that Al says he knows what is best for me, and George says is not willing to be wrong in make that choice. He wants me to decide. [This message has been edited by oeilpere (edited October 19, 2000).]
Achebe -- I didn't see anything in your post about how the budget wasn't balanced until the Republicans took control of Congress. I guess you forgot to include that part. Or how it was the Republicans all along that were pushing for a balanced budget amendment. Or how any spending measure must be approved by Congress (which was Democratic in the Reagan years). You also didn't mention the number of Reagan's budgets that actually got approved by Congress. Or that the vast majority of governors have been Republican during the Clinton years. I guess that was another slight oversight. I'll just assume you intended to include that information, but the thought escaped you at the time you were constructing your post. I won't even begin to talk about how it's reeeaaalll easy to say you were never afraid of the Russians until after the fact.
I didn't mention that. It's wrong. The first balanced budget amendment was in 1993. You guys tried to balance it more in 1995, but it didn't work and Clinton won again. The second balanced budget amendment was in 1997. The first bal... oh I already said that. Republicans are always claiming that Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union. I was humoring them, and frankly I could care if it was Reagan, the 'reagan democrats' (these people are all considered republicans nowadays), or liberal democrats. That wasn't my point, was it? In that post I tried to make the argument that the SS fund was robbed. Robbing it again when the payments are due seems unwise, but that's just me. I'm not trying to blame anyone, that's why I had a ' '. blah blah blah. Although you forced me to discuss the year that the first balanced budget was passed, and thus wasted both of our times, my entire point was that the focus in 1992 and 1996 was a different focus than apparently exists now. I wasn't trying to give credit to Clinton (although he balanced the budget and protected my interests and most Americans interests, so I assume he deserves it). I wasn't trying to assess blame, I was just connecting the two dots that most people ignore (communism + deficits). I was doing one thing: making an argument for spending the budget surplus in a certain way. [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited October 19, 2000).]
rimbaud, I was not "spout(ing) out taglines that have no real meaning." Under the Bush tax plan I will receive more tax relief than under the Gore tax plan. Therefor Gore is deciding what to do with my money if he is elected while Bush would allow me to decide what to do with it. Also, Bush wants to allow young professionals to plan for their own retirment, at least in part. Gore wants to put all social security in a lockbox. Every economist I have talked to has said that social security will go bankrupt in its present form. To me this all says that Gore thinks he knows what is best for me (and is wrong), while Bush thinks I know what is best for me. Meaningless taglines, I don't thiunk so. RM95, Since when did posting a list of ten reasonable guidelines constitute shoving anything down peoples throats. With the exception of prohibitions against polytheism and idolotry, what problems are there in the ten commandments. Aren't most of the commandments in line with existing laws; Perjury (sp?), murder, burglury, etc. As to telling someone what to do with their bodies, we already do that, suicide is illegal. Surely it can be seen how abortion hurts another at least as much as suicide. Finally, I agree that legal homosexual marriage, (as opposed to religious marriage), should be allowed, but no candidate is perfect, it is chosing the candidate that is less flawed that is our duty as voters. ------------------ Don't come in Bullard's house!
Hydra, You seem to not understand one basic principle. In its purist form, goverment is supposed to provide services for its people. Part of the way they can do this is through taxation - to pay for services. Are you going to help improve the education in this country with your $500 tax break? How about public transportation? Medical care? Give your money to an arts organization? Understand, I am not saying that Gore will do all of this - just that, if a government were to spend extra money on these things, why would that be a bad thing? Individuals (unless they group together, pooling money and power - thus creating a government of their own) simply cannot do certain things. Would you rather have that extra $500 or a good school system, universal health insurance (so that we could get to the same level as every other industrialized nation), etc.? I guess that extra television is more important. ------------------ Talking to a dead hare about art
Oh, and you were just spouting out taglines because that is exactly what Bush kept saying. It is meant to stick in the mind and you followed through. That would be the same as someone else saying that voting for Gore is voting for someone who will fight for the middle class, common man. Useless, requires no intelligence to say. Means nothing. ------------------ Talking to a dead hare about art
