The W
Views: 100010275
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.10.14 1959
The W - Current Events & Politics - The Bush Tax plan only helps the RICH! (Page 2)
This thread has 44 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(2338 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (34 total)
mountinman44
Sujuk








Since: 8.5.02
From: San Diego, CA

Since last post: 1252 days
Last activity: 1099 days
Y!:
#21 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by asteroidboy
      though why does it always seem like we go into a recession when the Republicans are in power?


    That is a fair question....but this recession started during the Clinton administration so I have to call foul here.

    Nevertheless, the debt wouldn't go through the roof if, and I know the Liberals hate to hear this, government cut spending. Now, the Bush administration is as guilty of this as anybody at this point, but the government need to feed off of tax revenues and grow is getting way the hell out of control and needs to be reduced simultaneously along with furhter tax cuts.



I'm sorry, but what were we in when Reagan took office? Oh yeah. Conveniently forgot about the recession and record inflation under Jimmy Carter.



"Funaki feel very dirty." -- Sho Funaki, #1 Smackdown Announcer, 1/2/03
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2831 days
Last activity: 2674 days
AIM:  
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
That was "stagflation," wasn't it?



Damn your eyes!
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1988 days
Last activity: 1922 days
#23 Posted on
"Yes and Clinton getting a blow job in the oval office then lying about it did not make him the biggest joke in the last 50 years."

Better than being an illiterate drunk-driver who probably took cocaine regularly in his youth.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1317 days
Last activity: 83 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#24 Posted on
Come on- you KNOW Clinton was into harder stuff in his younger years.
One thing I just simply do not care about is DRUG use by presidents in their youths. COME ON, I mean really- You are young, and you experiment, and you move on. Get over it, for both Clinton and Bush. As far as Clinton goes, there is VOLUMES of other crap you can nail the guy on, and as far as Bush goes-
The topic is TAX CUTS? Not the BS "Democratic slander of last week!" Bush's intelligence is NOT the topic here and you would think that tired ploy would be burned out by now...



My attempt at a webpage

CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 2 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#25 Posted on

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    The topic is TAX CUTS? Not the BS "Democratic slander of last week!" Bush's intelligence is NOT the topic here and you would think that tired ploy would be burned out by now...
Actually, it sure looked like you started this thread just to troll people, and boy I'm getting really tired of people doing that around here.



©CRZ™
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 108 days
Last activity: 3 days
#26 Posted on
I'm with CRZ (it is his playground). Let's try and bring the debate back to the subject at hand and get a decent discussion going because this is a substantive topic and shouldn't descend into partisian bickering.


    Originally posted by calvinh0560
    I have seen leading economic annalist some love the idea of the tax cut some hate the idea of the tax cut at this time. Its hard for someone like me who has 1 college class in economics to know who to believe.


Calvin--The short answer is that because it depends on the assumptions used by the economist. The longer answer follows.

In Moe's example, he mentioned that a $50 tax cut today means at least a $50 future tax liability because the government will be incurring a debt they have to pay back in the future. Some economists believe that households realize that so they do not spend their tax cut. Instead they save money (perhaps by paying off some current debt) because they realize the future implied tax liability (this is called Ricardian Equivalence). Therefore, the tax cut has no impact on the economy.

Other economists feel that households will spend this money and thereby stimulate the economy (to me it seems highly unlikely that all or even most households will save all their tax savings, but it would depend on the current environment--I know that I did save all of my previous tax rebate from Bush). ScreamingHeadGuy said that 'Tax cuts are a sound and proven way to stimulate spending, investment, and the consequent economic growth.' Not exactly. Although you can make the argument that tax cuts stimulate spending and lead to short-term economic growth, it is completely untrue that they stimulate investment. Look in the index of any principles (introductory) of economics text and find the term 'crowding out'. This says that increases in government spending (or decreases in taxes) will crowd out investment (a more advanced text will give a more robust explanation and I would go into more detail but this post is long enough as is). So, by their very nature, tax cuts (or increases in government spending) will decrease national investment and therefore the national savings rate because government must finance the fiscal expansion with debt (this policy also has the effect of shifting some private investment into consumption and it also increases the cost of investment). To illustrate, the national savings rate dropped from 16.7% to 14.1% during Reagan's presidency. The problem is that less savings and investment means less future growth. So, you have the classic long-run vs. short-run trade off (which is not to say that it's never a good idea to implement expansionary fiscal policy).

Regardless, changing fiscal policy will not help long-term economic growth. For that, we need higher levels of investment or productivity/efficiency gains. So, any tax cut will only be a temporary fix at best (again, depending on what households do with the money). BTW, gains in productivity are the reason that the lower savings/investment rate of the 1980s did not affect the economy in the long-run.

(edited by Corajudo on 14.1.03 0841)
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.73

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    All I have to say is that whole speal about where taxs cuts really come from is BULLSHIT.
    I am sorry, it was simply not well thought out.
    Take California for example. This state was ROARING in tax dollars from the DotCom boom last decade. Tax revenues went UP UP UP because the economy was doing so well. So what did our government do? INCREASED SPENDING. So now we are facing a record deficit, because all of the sudden the cash cow is gone, and we are in trouble.



I never said to increase spending. You make my point for me. Cutting taxes or increasing spending increases debt, which is bad.




    The Republican answer to this problem is to cut taxes. (especially instead of increasing spending) THEN, when there is a lack of funds, cut the budget. There is no denying that there is a huge glut of government spending that needs to be dealt with. The thing that Democrats seem to convienently forget is that under Reagan, this WORKED.



This is ridiculous. Spending ballooned under Reagan. The GOP likes to talk a good game about cutting spending, but they never actually do it. Nixon didn't. Reagan didn't. Bush didn't. Junior hasn't. You can blame the Demcrats in congress, or special interest lobbies, or whoever you want, but the fact remains that the GOP simply does not have a record of reducing government spending.

Even just going by the rhetoric, the GOP just likes to spend money on different stuff than the democrats. Need I remind you one of Reagan's favorite ideas involved spending 1 TRILLION dollars? I'm not saying Star Wars was or wasn't a good or bad program, but it was certainly a heck of a lot of government spending.


    Everyone was better off during Reagan, finantially.


Then under who? Clinton? Bush? Are you forgeting the worst recession we've had in the since the 50s occured under Reagan in 1981-82. But I'm sure that was Carter's fault. Notice we don't go blaming Ford for Carter's economic woes, but you guys just can't seem to take responsibility for anything that happens on your watch.



    One might say that you should cut spending first, and then give a taxbreak. But everyone knows that no matter what party you are from, a politician is going to fight tooth and nail against a budget reduction for their pet projects if there is still the money to spend on it. We need the tax cuts NOW to help the economy, we can work on the budget after it is a done deal. I am sure that we will live on a deficit for a few months to a year.



That's what Reagan said, and we finally managed to balance the budget 17 years later! We better hope there's a Democrat in the White House in "a few months to a year" if you want the deficit to end then. And the idea that "we can't do anything about spending, so we may as well no deal with it" is ludicrous. And Republican's will fight tooth and nail to keep their pet projects even if there's no money to spend on it.


    I do not understand why something that helps people everywhere is so terrible, because it happens to help rich people too. This is not a government hand out- this is the government giving you YOUR MONEY BACK! Why ever would you insist that it give you THEIR money too


I understand this arguement, but if the GOP offered some payroll tax relief also, which they won't even talk about, I'd buy it more. They are all about cutting taxes that mainly rich people pay, but not anywhere to be heard on the subject of cutting taxes that hit lower-income workers harder.

Also. screaming head guy says:

    Pool-Boy, you may use your California example. But here in Wisconsin, when we had a surplus, the legislature decided to pass a perscription drug benefit, because we had ALL that extra money (this was in the summer of 2001, when the effects of the latest slowdown were beginning to show).


When I was living in Wisconsin, I remember very different things being done with the surplus. I remember everyone getting a "tax refund check" in the mail (similar to the Bush I thing), and other tax cuts going into effect. Of course, Tommy Thompson took it out of the homestead tax credit (a tax credit that benefits low-income people), in yet another example of the GOP making a big gimmicky show of giving low-income people a little with one hand, while fleecing them with the other.

Also, on the subject of the divident tax, there is a very intersting article about a possible side effect of reducing accounting gimmicks and corporate coruption as a result. Click Here
So I might actually support it. I've got to read more though.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1067 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
I also have no problem reducing the payroll taxes. THAT is the one tax that screws everybody equally. Robert Reich's hairbrained idea was to cut the payroll tax for three years on the first $20,000, then reinstate it. This would be suicide for the Democrats because people would realize how much money they were being taken for and when the money went back there would be a tax revolt of sorts(though nothing like what happens in Tennesse, which I always get a kick out of)



We need more like Senator Taft
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1317 days
Last activity: 83 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#29 Posted on
Personally I feel whether we are in a deficit or not is the government's problem to handle. I like to look at it like this-
the government is taking too much of my money. The way things are going, they will want to take more. So I am for a tax cut, to keep that from happening.
YES, a deficit is bad, but not disasterous. Hell, our country was founded on deficit spending. But we all know that no matter the party, there is always someone out there who will quite sucessfully prevent such cuts if the funds are available. Hell, look how long it took to cut the LAST deficit, and they did not even have they money!
I am not going to wait for the government to cut spending before they give me my tax cut. If I were to do that, I would never get it. And you all know this is true.
You have to do BOTH. But I am not going to oppose one, just because the other has not been done yet.

Oh, and Pool-Boy never Trolls. I haven't had either the patience or the fascination with that in a number of years. If you can't talk about tax-cuts in the Politics forum, then what is it here for?



My attempt at a webpage

MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.73
I guess this is why you're a Republican and I'm not. I can live with leaving it at that.

My priorities:

1) no deficit/pay off debt.
2) spend correctly (not more or less, more in some areas and less in others).
3) generate revenue (taxes or other means) correctly, up to the level we need to spend in order to not have a debt.

In other words, if I ran the world, I'd start with the assumption that I'm going to spend as much as I take in, excepting for saving during good times and using that savings during emergencies (this means pretty much nothing short of war or a severe depression), which would help keep tax levels AND spending levels more even and less reliant on economic cirmumstance. Given our current economic situation though, I'd start with the assumption that we're going to take in slightly MORE than we spend, in order to start paying off the debt.

Then I'd figure out what we need (NEED not a wish list) to spend money on. This sets our budget. Of course, what I think this country NEEDS to spend money on is probably very different from yours.

Then I'd figure out how to raise that money.

After this, I'd start going through wish lists for spending, each with a proposed way of raising the revenue. If the good done by the spending outweighed the bad done by raising the revenue, I'd do it. Otherwise I wouldn't.

It's really similar to the way I run my household. I don't get in debt, unless I know for a fact that taking that debt now is actually a long-term investment that will end up making me money overall (in essence, student loans and a mortgage).

Then I figure out what I need to live on. Then I figure out how to make at least that much money. It's not a whole lot, so it's not that tough. But it does mean the difference between, as an example, taking a boring, low-paying job as opposed to volunteering full-time at a really neat fun place.

If I find myself making more money than I need, I save it. Ok, sometimes I buy myself WWE tickets, but that's my personal weakness, the same way that military base in Mississippi is Trent Lott's weakness. It's not optimal.

I also have a "want" list. If I find myself with extra money, maybe I'll spend in on that instead of saving it, especially if I've already saved a bit. Or maybe I'll really really want something, and take a side job shoveling snow or working the bar or making gay porn (kidding! I'm not in that kind of shape!) to get the dough.

Now Pool-Boy (I think) would:

a) figure out how much money we should raise, and how to go about doing it. It's probably not going to be very much.

b) figure out how much money we need to spend, and how to spend it.

c) borrow the money if b) happens to be larger than a), or give a refund if a) happens to be larger than b). Maybe I'm wrong and you think we should save the money, which for obviuous reasons, is a better idea.

I don't want to speak for you though, so feel free to correct me. It's just differeing philosophies. My only pet peeve is when Republicans present themsleves as being "fiscally responsible" when by "fiscally reponsible" to me mean "don't spend more money than you have," which is 180 degrees from the GOP record.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
TheCow
Landjager








Since: 3.1.02
From: Knoxville, TN

Since last post: 2451 days
Last activity: 2450 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#31 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis
    I also have no problem reducing the payroll taxes. THAT is the one tax that screws everybody equally. Robert Reich's hairbrained idea was to cut the payroll tax for three years on the first $20,000, then reinstate it. This would be suicide for the Democrats because people would realize how much money they were being taken for and when the money went back there would be a tax revolt of sorts(though nothing like what happens in Tennesse, which I always get a kick out of)


Grimis, the last major budget crisis we had - last year, no less - actually managed to shut down the state. Why, you ask? Simple. We couldn't create enough revenue to offset the spending. Granted, we don't have an imcome tax (something I will get to in a minute), so that drastically cut down on how much the state could raise.

Now, some of the Demos in the State House decided to push an income tax plan - something I greatly supported. (I'll go ahead and let you know where I stand now on it.) The Republicans (granted, there were some Democrats against it, too, but not too many ...primarily Republican) railed against this greatly, saying as it would be "unjust" and a whole lot of other things. However, when pressed about what to cut, the Republicans balked. Bottom line in Tennessee: although the Republicans didn't want the income tax raised to increase revenue, they also refused to reduce spending.

(For whatever it's worth, they ended up increasing the sales tax again ...and I fully anticipate the state shutting down again in July.)

Granted, I'm aware that Tennessee's economy is far from the national economy, but I see it as much the same thing; if you're going to spend money on programs, you've got to make sure you can raise the money. (Although I will admit that I'm not entirely sure of what the payroll tax is in this case; I just thought I would shed some light on how backwater we are down here.)







Which Neglected Mario Character Are You?

Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1067 days
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
That's my problem with the entire thing; I support cutting state spending to justify the tax cut. The problem is that a lot of blowhards in the GOP don't and want to use the tax cut for political gain rather than for good governance.



We need more like Senator Taft
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1317 days
Last activity: 83 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#33 Posted on
Ah - the trouble with politicians. They may well belong to your party, and outwardly agree with your ideals- but for the most part, they are all underhanded bastards who are too busy catering to others to really see things through.
I, for one, think that on both state and national levels, things need totally ripped down and rebuilt. The government infastructure is so weighty - so inefficient that things get lost in the cracks easily. I mean, How else do you have a situation in California where there are tens of thousands of unfilled jobs budgeted for, but a- there is no office space to house them, b- they are not actively hiring for these jobs anyway, and c- the money, instead of going back to the treasury or to the taxpayer, they go to the department that the "jobs" are allotted to to spend as they will?
I would be willing to bet that if you sat down and seriously redesigned every aspect of the federal government (and state governments, for that matter), we could do everything we are doing now, provide MORE services, and spend less money.
This is one of the reasons I am a proponnent of privatization for several government programs. There is no denying that a private company is far and away more efficient than the government. This is not the best solution, no, but it is better than what we have now...



My attempt at a webpage

MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.73
Speaking as a municipal employee, here are the problem's that I've found with "reforming" government:

It is extraordinarily hard to have a system in government that isn't either a) inefficient or b) corrupt. And both of these things waste money. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying that it's tough.

Here's why: there are essentially two ways you use money in government (for hiring people, contracting out, whatever): you can have an elected official do it on their discretion, or have someone they appoint do it at their discretion, or someone that's appointed by someone they appoint do it, etc.

OR, you can set up some sort of civil service program, where there are objective standards to getting hired, getting contracts, etc.

The problem with the first one is that we won't accept practices from elected offials that we accept from the private sector. For instance, if the governor hires his kid for a plum job, the electorate would be up in arms. That would be considered corrupt. However, if a CEO hires his kid for a plum job, nobody is really up in arms. It's just part of being the CEO, or the owner of the company. Sometimes it's even considered good. If the Mayor gives jobs to everyone who helped him get elected, that's considered corrupt. However, if a businessman gives jobs to people who volunteered their time to help get his business off the ground, that's considered fair, if not good business. In fact, someone who DIDN'T do this would probably be considered a scumball, and rightly so. You can extend this logic to giving city contracts, and almost anything else that has to do with how the government spends money.

This is how our system worked for quite a while, until people got fed up with it. To counter this, you need civil service rules and procedures, and strong municipal unions. The problem with this is that, while making the process less political and more merit-based, it also makes hiring city workers, giving out city contracts, etc. a lot more inefficient, and adds a lot of layers of buraucracy to the whole deal.

The WORST is what we have here in New York City, which is essentially all the bureaucracy, but with enough loopholes that you also get all the corruption. For instance, it took me 6 months from the time I was offered a job to actually start (the bureaucracy) AND I got said job not through the proper civil service channels, but becuase someone who knew the loopholes decided she wanted to get me in for whatever reason (corruption).

The problem with the pat answer of "let's privatize it - private companies are more efficient" is this:

#1 - Private companies are not more efficient. Some private companies are horribly inefficient. The difference is that the inefficient ones eventually go out of business (in a perfect capitalist dream world). The problem is what happens if and when one of these innefficient companies gets ahold of a big government program, and proceeds to drive it into the ground. The normal capitalist correction of the consumer being able to choose a cheaper, more efficient provider doesn't exist.

#2 - you would still have the same problem as we have now: corruption vs. inefficiency. The process for awarding government contracts (and the government would have to decide which private companies would run various programs) is riddled with corruption. I could write a book on this. In fact, this is where the vast majority of government waste comes from - an elected official puts a word in to the manager to steer a contract to his buddy who owns a private business that supported him, and said buddy (because there is no incentive to actually do a good job) proceeds to do the least amount of work for the most amount of money he can. The alternative, of course, is to have random or objective criteria for choosing contractors, which leads to the same layers of bureaucracy and inefficiency. It's through privitization of government services that the most waste occures, because not only are the problems still there, you're removing a layer of government oversight, which makes it easier for people to get away with stuff.

Anyway, it's my view that it's the job of government to provide services that are NOT safe or not profitable (or if made profitable, would be unsafe), yet necessary. For instance, nobody suggests privatizing the army. That would be pretty damn scary (not safe). Also, take a service such as firefighting. How could a private company possibly make a profit fighting fires, yet still respond to all fires? The only way for that business to be profitable would be to not offer service to people who couldn't afford it. Our society, however, has decided that if your house is on fire, it should get put out, no matter if you aren't able to afford to pay for it or not. So we make firefighting part of the government.

My point is that the reason private companies are more efficient than government is because private companies are profit-driven. If they weren't, they wouldn't be just as inefficient as government. And almost everything government does would not be possible as a profit-driven business.



It seems that I am - in no particular order - Zack Morris, John Adams, a Siren, Aphrodite, Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel, Amy-Wynn Pastor, Hydrogen, Spider-Man, and Boston.
Pages: Prev 1 2
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: Liberation Day
Next thread: One step closer to Big Brother
Previous thread: George Ryan -- your anti-death penalty saviour
(2338 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
well, the UN has no "powers" at all. they can recommend or give it's blessing on some actions, but they have NO SOVERGINITY OVER ANY OTHER NATIONS...
The W - Current Events & Politics - The Bush Tax plan only helps the RICH! (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.134 seconds.