Pose the question of the national debt to a conservative economist, and they'll carry on for half an hour, speaking in Economese that the debt is no big deal.
But it's usually done to make the case for cutting taxes. Which leads me to question their motives.
Then they'll say that tax cuts increase revenue. But has revenue to the government ever decreased. tax cuts or not? And how much would it have increased had there not been a tax cut?
Questions that I have never heard asked by lazy reporters.
"Just ask Jayson Blair from the NY Times, I bet he asked him, he had dinner with the Pope the same night too, said so right there in his story. "
I read about him and all the lies a told. It's an awful story. Then I started reading through the story by story rundown on Sunday, I couldn't finish. It was too distressing, but for my own reasons. I was imagining what it must feel like -- to have a group of editors run through several years of your work and pick it apart.
There it is -- in the A section in black print on white background with your picture.
This guy was real bad seed, I know that. But in seeing that, I couldn't help but feel a little sorry for him. That's like a horrid nightmare.
I think it's an isolated incident. The guy sounded like he was troubled. I am suprised that it got past that many editors that many times. Perhaps they become complacent. As left leaning as I think they are I used to respect their work nonetheless. I'm not a journailst but from what I understand they were the benchmark. I wonder who will take that posistion now ? Hopefully it will give other editors some pause.
how 'bout a loan there jethro? i promise i'll pay it back. and if i don't i'll borrow more to pay the interest on it and leave the principle for my grandkids.
how 'bout a loan there jethro? i promise i'll pay it back. and if i don't i'll borrow more to pay the interest on it and leave the principle for my grandkids.
The total outstanding debt of the federal government, often referred to as the gross federal debt, now stands at approximately $6.2 trillion. That figure is composed of $3.5 trillion in debt that the government owes to the public and $2.7 trillion in debt that the government owes to itself. link
In other words, we have been collecting too much taxes (such as Social Security) and by law must borrow that money. With all that money laying around, it becomes easy to find ways to spend it.
Find out which parts of the government is owed money here.
See how the Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding is spiraling down here.
My 2 cents on it is that every economist you talk to has a different view on it. Alot of it depends on their political bend.
Deficit's are similar to a faimly's debt load in some ways. You have to borrow for some things, homes, cars, etc. If you had to save up for those items you wouldn't have them usually. Also debt like credit cards etc that you might use in emergency's or when things are tight. Now if your credit cards are maxed out because you liked to go to the mall every day then it's self induced. So it's a balance of debt and borrowing when you need and spending when and where it makes sense.
Business' have to take on debt loads in order to expand, same with the government. There are 2 ways of looking at it. The government's debt load is the same as the families in the sense that they have to decide what amount of debt to take on and THEN most importantly live within those means. The federal government does not have that constraint unfortunatley. The other way to look at it is as the business' do. In order to expand ie: wether it be for tax relief or spending it's going to effect their revenues or collections.
It all comes down to spending and deciding what's important to spend it on and then balancing it with some spending some cuts and some debt. IMO I don't see a huge problem right now with the deficit. Yes it has disadvantages but could become even worse in the cycle if we put all our resources into adressing the debt load thereby having a much harsher domino effect of GDP.
"IMO I don't see a huge problem right now with the deficit. Yes it has disadvantages but could become even worse in the cycle if we put all our resources into adressing the debt load thereby having a much harsher domino effect of GDP. "
Well there's the alternative which would be that if the other party was in power we'd be spending it anyways. Gebhardt's medical plan would cost much more. Over 200 million per year just to start. The tax cut is over 10 years and would likely change with new admins etc. Nope no crys of deficits then. Then it's o.k I guess. Either way it has to come from somewhere. Personally I'd rather put it back into the economy than spend it.
I know that Democrats in general don't think that tax cuts stimulate the economy. They do. For instance I needed new computers for my business. The others were getting pretty old as well as some of my other office equippment. There was a tax-cut for new office equippment. Or I should say a larger portion would be able to be written off if bought before last November I believe as an incentive. I was planning to wait until next year to do that but because of the credit I did. They got sales tax on my purchases, the purchases keep people employed that make and sell them. The company that does is taxed on their profit, the workers are taxed on their wages as well, in turn they are able to go out and buy things which they are taxed on that employ more people.
The other option is that they wouldn't have given that credit. I would have waited to buy new stuff. Now they would have eventually got it but who knows when. It was an incentive for me to do so. If they decided to not give credits but say increase taxes I certainly wouldn't have bought new stuff as it's a small margin I operate under. Had they decided to raise taxes I probably wouldn't have been able to hire another part time person who in turn contributes to the economy through taxes and purchaes. This I realize is a simplistic microcosm of our economy but multiply that with the thousands of small business owners and coporations.
A new spending program isn't going to stimulate the economy, people spending money does. It's simple math, the more they have the more they spend and the more they are taxed in the long run throught what they purchase and those purchases employ people. It's a wonderful cycle that's worked well. When you take a part of the cycle away or make one side too heavy it doesn't work. When revenues are higher the deficit takes care of itself as long as the politicians don't use it for more spending. Something they're all guilty of.
How is it "spiraling down" Dan? That's not what I'm seeing.
What I am seeing is assuming that the average per month continues, we are saving more than $64 Billion this year alone compared to 1998. What should we be doing with this extra money that has been taken from the taxpayers?
So $550 billion in tax cuts suits you just fine?
Divide that $550 billion by 10 years and that comes to an average of $55 billion per year. $64 billion (saved in interest this year) - $55 billion (per year taxcut) = $9 billion left over this year alone.
You don't like the debt? Let's use the $9 billion dollars we just saved to pay it down. As I have shown earlier, there is debt held by the public and there is intragovernmental holdings. Which way should we go? Do you prefer retiring some of the publicly held debt (sorry grandma, you have to take this money back and find another way to invest it that involves more risk) or should we repay the intragovernmental debt and what would social security excesses be invested in? If I am not mistaken, by federal law that money must be invested in federal securities, which in turn runs the debt right back up to where it was.
I know I have simplified the numbers for the sake of debate, but they all add up to the real numbers over the long term. So what is your answer? What would president Rick do?
Fix Social Security (I'm sure something is needed)
Like personal accounts that can be invested in anyway the contributor wishes?
I doubt it needs anything else since they are taking in more money then they need. Granted that money is for future payments, but apparently, nothing is needed now or it would be taken from the excess.
and pay down the debt.
Since excess government funds (by law) are to by used to buy government securities creating more debt, I guess you are telling grandma that she needs to find a riskier way to invest her savings? I can hear Wellstone turning in his grave over that comment. Not very Democrat of you now is it?
Foregoing tax cuts is not much of a sacrifice to fight the WOT, wouldn't you agree, Dan?
Apparently, we can do both just using the savings on interest payments alone.
So spending more money than is taken in is now part of preserving the social safety net for the elderly? It's a duty, almost patriotic?
Throwing Wellstone philosophy at me is not helping your case, Dan. Considering the source, it makes it more suspect.
Just admit you want the tax cut and you think the debt is irrelevant, because its lost in cats cradle of accounting tricks and a flurry of paper that could fill stadiums. But, I get the feeling, in years on, something is going to happen and it's not good. Common sense dictates it. Why does the European Union caution member states when their deficits run too high? I don't think Brussels is praising them for fiscal health.
And if the economy improves, it will be on its own accord, and the tax cut will be equally irrelevant. A small groupof wealthy people will see some real reductions. and the rest of us won't even notice it.
But the White House will stake the bogus cliam that it saved the economy. It will be as bogus as the claim that the Clinton White House made that the tax increase of '93 contributed to several years of budget surpluses.
"Apparently, we can do both just using the savings on interest payments alone."
Which would, in essence return interest payments to traditional levels, right? Tell me the benefit of that.
So spending more money than is taken in is now part of preserving the social safety net for the elderly? It's a duty, almost patriotic?
Who is saying that we should spend more? What is being asked is that we let people keep more of the money that they earn in order to help the economy get going. But that wouldn't fit into the Democrat's agenda now would it?
Throwing Wellstone philosophy at me is not helping your case, Dan. Considering the source, it makes it more suspect.
So Wellstone would like you to tell people who invest money into safe government securities to find something more risky? Nice.
Just admit you want the tax cut and you think the debt is irrelevant, because its lost in cats cradle of accounting tricks and a flurry of paper that could fill stadiums.
It is lost in accounting tricks that would bring down any normal buisiness, but that is not the reason for taxcuts. I was just wondering how you would pay off the debt and have not got a straight answer on that question yet.
But, I get the feeling, in years on, something is going to happen and it's not good. Common sense dictates it. Why does the European Union caution member states when their deficits run too high? I don't think Brussels is praising them for fiscal health.
Which is better for the debt Rick, Kerry's health care idea (which in his estimate will cost at least $720 billion over the next 10 years) or the taxcuts which will provide jobs and more taxes (house version will cost $550 billion, senate version $350 billion)?
And if the economy improves, it will be on its own accord, and the tax cut will be equally irrelevant. A small groupof wealthy people will see some real reductions. and the rest of us won't even notice it.
Already giving excuses for when the economy improves due to taxcuts huh?
You can go to this linkand figure your reduction. I will save about 10% on my taxes. I think that I will notice that.
But the White House will stake the bogus cliam that it saved the economy. It will be as bogus as the claim that the Clinton White House made that the tax increase of '93 contributed to several years of budget surpluses.
So are you claiming that the president has little to do with the economy? I'll have to bookmark this one for later when you are telling us how Bush destroyed the economy.
"Apparently, we can do both just using the savings on interest payments alone."
Which would, in essence return interest payments to traditional levels, right? Tell me the benefit of that.
Fact is, I am not in the upper 5-10%. I would be surprised if I am even in the upper 50%. I would save almost 10% on my taxes as I stated earlier, so I guess that old party line of yours doesn't hold any water.
I went back to that site and put in my information again and changed the income to $1,000,000, everything else was the same. My current income gets me a tax savings of 9.59%, the $1,000,000 wage gets a tax savings of 8.70%. Try it for yourselves and see what you get. Hardly a giveaway to the rich if I get a bigger percent back now is it?
Let's assume for a minute that you are correct though. Let's give the upper folks the money. What do you think that they would do with it? Invest it in business and create new jobs helping those out of work to get a job?
You still didn't tell us which debt you would pay down. Would it be intragovernmental and what would they do with the money, or would it be the public debt? Some more information before you decide... according to The Bond Market Association, individuals hold about 12.0% of the public debt, pensions hold about 8.8%, Banks 6.9%, State & Local gov. 2.5%, Insurance companies 3.6%, etc. What would you suggest that these groups do with the money that you wish to repay? Would you like to see more pension or social security money in the stock market? Perhaps you prefer that banks put money in the stock market or should the VA just bury it's excess monies in a mason jar in Al Gore's backyard? He could finally have that lockbox he so desperately wanted.
OK, Dan,, I'm assuming you addressed this to me: Correct me if I'm wrong.
"You still didn't tell us which debt you would pay down. "
You're throwing out so many numbers and running me in so many circles, and telliing me I don't know what I'm talking about. It's the equivalent of a document dump. If you want to play the game that way, that's fine. But I'll take that into account should I decide to engage you in the future.
I'll sit at your feet and you can explain why the debt should not be an issue, and it's irrelevant, nd tax cuts are more important. And then you can feel like the lecturer you wanna be. I'm wondering what YOU think. I'm not interested in a paper chase.
and by the way..
(But, I get the feeling, in years on, something is going to happen and it's not good. Common sense dictates it. Why does the European Union caution member states when their deficits run too high? I don't think Brussels is praising them for fiscal health. )
You really didn't answer that point either. I don't know why you're dragging John Kerry into this.
Is debt fiscally healthy, and something that should be essentially ignored?
OK, Dan,, I'm assuming you addressed this to me: Correct me if I'm wrong.
Actually, it was to Fold who addressed the topic last. Feel free to comment though.
You're throwing out so many numbers and running me in so many circles, and telliing me I don't know what I'm talking about. It's the equivalent of a document dump. If you want to play the game that way, that's fine. But I'll take that into account should I decide to engage you in the future.
Sorry if you feel overwhelmed. I thought that you should see what I have found on the net to bolster my arguement, otherwise there would be those here crying for proof. I have seen it so many times that I just naturally provide the proof from the beginning.
I do not believe that I ever told you that you do not know what your are talking about. I like these discussions because I have learned more here than I ever did in school. There are many who know more about subjects than I do and many others who challenge me to prove my points. This is what has taught me a lot over the years.
I'll sit at your feet and you can explain why the debt should not be an issue, and it's irrelevant, nd tax cuts are more important. And then you can feel like the lecturer you wanna be. I'm wondering what YOU think. I'm not interested in a paper chase.
Pfft... you don't sit at my feet or anyone elses for that matter. A lecturer is the last thing that I want to be.
I have always felt that the debt is an issue, but needs to be kept within certain context. For example, was it an issue when Clinton was bragging that the budget was balanced? No, but it should have been, as the debt continued to grow the whole time. How can you balance a budget with debt? That was not a balanced budget.
Currently, we use a disgraceful manner of bookeeping. The Social Security funds have excessive amounts, so they borrow it to the Federal government in the form of non-negotiable bonds and they spend it. There is nothing left. When time comes to repay, there will be hikes in taxes or cuts in spending. Since both parties have their pet projects, the tax hikes will probably be what passes hurting the economy. If they save the money and invest it in stocks and such, there will be cries about wasting money on the stock market. Therefore,I feel the Social Security fund should collect what they need and no more. The Feds should collect what they need and no more. It is easier for our reps to spend money than to make cuts.
and by the way..
(But, I get the feeling, in years on, something is going to happen and it's not good. Common sense dictates it. Why does the European Union caution member states when their deficits run too high? I don't think Brussels is praising them for fiscal health. )
You really didn't answer that point either.
I am not up on their reasons or what debt they are talking about, so I cannot answer.
I don't know why you're dragging John Kerry into this.
Because he is a Democratic contender stating his beliefs on health care. His plan would add tremendously to the problems with our fiscal health. I noticed that you didn't address the debt that he would create.
Is debt fiscally healthy, and something that should be essentially ignored?
It depends. It should never be ignored, but debt can be good in some instances. To simplify this, interest is at a record low. Would someone with enough income to afford house payments buy a house or rent until they have saved up enough money to pay cash for a house? With the prices of things going up, is it wise to borrow enough money to do that addition that you have been thinking about or should you save up enough cash first? On the other hand, somone making minimum wage should not be looking at houses, new cars, boat, etc.
So if a tax break can stir the economy enough to create more jobs and more taxes, I say go for it.
Because they seem to come year after year again, now.
I don't personally lie awake worrying about them (but I have had dreams that I've accumulated more debt than I can ever pay back), but as matter of discussion, I think they're an issue that should be addressed.
I have had dreams that I've accumulated more debt than I can ever pay back), but as matter of discussion, I think they're an issue that should be addressed.
And what does a person usually do if they take on too much debt ?
I talked to a dealer in French wine a couple weeks ago. He said he thinks the downturn in US sales will be short lived. But he admitted that they've taken a hit in the US.
I've also talked to some people in French tourism. They were in Minneapolis last week.
Deals to be had for Americans who want to visit France. Cheap travel this summer. Made me wistful. Wish I had the schedule freedom to go.
May 17, 6:06 p.m. CDT) - As the fight in Congress over the Bush tax cut comes down to the home stretch, one peculiarity of the debate has been the nearly unanimous Democratic opposition to the notion that tax reductions will stimulate growth.
In the House only a small handful of Democrats support the president's plan, and in the Senate only two out of 49 do.
It wasn't always like this. Once upon a time the Democrats were the tax cutters and the Republicans were the deficit hawks.
Rewind to 1963 and what is striking is that the party's roles and arguments were reversed. Back then, it was President John F. Kennedy who wanted to cut taxes to grow the economy and create jobs. Democrats today are completely uninformed of the tax-cutting legacy of Kennedy.
20% !
President Kennedy sponsored legislation to cut income tax rates by 20 percent. (Then freshman Senator Ted Kennedy voted for that tax cut 40 years ago.) The tax cuts were an unparalleled economic success. Total national employment grew by more than 1 million jobs in the four years after the enactment of the Kennedy tax cuts. The economic growth rate climbed from 4.3 percent to 6.6 percent.
Those tax cuts also generated an increase in tax revenues, which helped balance the budget. Total income tax receipts grew from $48.7 billion in 1964 to $68.7 billion by 1968. This was a faster rate of growth of tax revenues than had been achieved in the preceding five years before the tax cuts were enacted. This was just as President Kennedy had predicted. In his 1963 speech to the Economics Club of New York, President Kennedy famously declared: "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low..." Sounding very much like Republicans today, JFK also said: "An economy constrained by high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will never create enough jobs or enough profits."
When Republicans said that we could not afford tax cuts, JFK Democrats scoffed. President Kennedy skewered his opponents on this point when he said: "Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other...It is between two kinds of deficits - a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy - or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, produce revenues and achieve a future budget surplus."
Today, Democrats make the same fatuous claims against President Bush's tax cut "investment in the future" as the Republicans made then.
JFK cut taxes 20% Could you imagine if Bush proposed that now ? We'd become Mexico overnight I'm sure. The funny part is........................The tax cuts actually worked ! Hmm what do you know, when you give people a bit more, they spend a bit more, they invest more and hire more and guess what ? Tax collections actually go up because their's more out there to be taxed ta da ! What a concept. JFK knew it and did it. Too bad the sky is falling crowd doesn't get it. Their solution ? just tax more and thing will get better.
If you check your history, you may find that JFK wanted tax rates dropped for low and middle income Americans. Can't verify that off the top of my head, but I can be corrected, if need be.
Also, I don't think dividend taxes were part of the Kennedy equation.
I'll meet you on the playground THX.
My dad can beat up your dad too !
Luv, I'm gonna kick your ass into next week.
btw: Of course you're Dad can beat up my Dad. You know damn well my Dad is a crippled and I don't appreciate you making fun of him.
When was the last time the debt was paid off?
Not in my lifetime.
My point exactly.
Pose the question of the national debt to a conservative economist, and they'll carry on for half an hour, speaking in Economese that the debt is no big deal.
But it's usually done to make the case for cutting taxes. Which leads me to question their motives.
Then they'll say that tax cuts increase revenue. But has revenue to the government ever decreased. tax cuts or not? And how much would it have increased had there not been a tax cut?
Questions that I have never heard asked by lazy reporters.
Bring it tall or not at all son !
Just ask Jayson Blair from the NY Times, I bet he asked him, he had dinner with the Pope the same night too, said so right there in his story.
When was the last time the debt was paid off?
Not in my lifetime.
Not in quite a few generations, I believe.
My point exactly.
Was that really your point? I thought you point was the increased debt will lead to ruin.
"Just ask Jayson Blair from the NY Times, I bet he asked him, he had dinner with the Pope the same night too, said so right there in his story. "
I read about him and all the lies a told. It's an awful story. Then I started reading through the story by story rundown on Sunday, I couldn't finish. It was too distressing, but for my own reasons. I was imagining what it must feel like -- to have a group of editors run through several years of your work and pick it apart.
There it is -- in the A section in black print on white background with your picture.
This guy was real bad seed, I know that. But in seeing that, I couldn't help but feel a little sorry for him. That's like a horrid nightmare.
Bring it tall or not at all son!
Good times. Good, good, times.
::wipes tear from eye::
Was that really your point? I thought you point was the increased debt will lead to ruin.
The point is we are mortgaging our childrens future. Sooner or later, someone is going to have to pay our debt.
I'm willing to keep my taxes level if spending is cut and my taxes help pay down the debt.
Rick 5/13/03 3:14pm
I think it's an isolated incident. The guy sounded like he was troubled. I am suprised that it got past that many editors that many times. Perhaps they become complacent. As left leaning as I think they are I used to respect their work nonetheless. I'm not a journailst but from what I understand they were the benchmark. I wonder who will take that posistion now ? Hopefully it will give other editors some pause.
The point is we are mortgaging our childrens future. Sooner or later, someone is going to have to pay our debt.
I don't know if it has to be paid. My guess is that it will not.
And democraps keep lying about believing in democracy: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86820,00.html
I don't know if it has to be paid. My guess is that it will not.
Why do you guess that?
We borrowed that money from somewhere.
Wouldn't you want to be paid?
how 'bout a loan there jethro? i promise i'll pay it back. and if i don't i'll borrow more to pay the interest on it and leave the principle for my grandkids.
Wouldn't you want to be paid?
what I may want has nothing to do with what I bleieve will happen.
how 'bout a loan there jethro? i promise i'll pay it back. and if i don't i'll borrow more to pay the interest on it and leave the principle for my grandkids.
Now I ain't as dum as the federahl guberment!
.
.
We borrowed that money from somewhere.
In other words, we have been collecting too much taxes (such as Social Security) and by law must borrow that money. With all that money laying around, it becomes easy to find ways to spend it.
Find out which parts of the government is owed money here.
See how the Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding is spiraling down here.
My 2 cents on it is that every economist you talk to has a different view on it. Alot of it depends on their political bend.
Deficit's are similar to a faimly's debt load in some ways. You have to borrow for some things, homes, cars, etc. If you had to save up for those items you wouldn't have them usually. Also debt like credit cards etc that you might use in emergency's or when things are tight. Now if your credit cards are maxed out because you liked to go to the mall every day then it's self induced. So it's a balance of debt and borrowing when you need and spending when and where it makes sense.
Business' have to take on debt loads in order to expand, same with the government. There are 2 ways of looking at it. The government's debt load is the same as the families in the sense that they have to decide what amount of debt to take on and THEN most importantly live within those means. The federal government does not have that constraint unfortunatley. The other way to look at it is as the business' do. In order to expand ie: wether it be for tax relief or spending it's going to effect their revenues or collections.
It all comes down to spending and deciding what's important to spend it on and then balancing it with some spending some cuts and some debt. IMO I don't see a huge problem right now with the deficit. Yes it has disadvantages but could become even worse in the cycle if we put all our resources into adressing the debt load thereby having a much harsher domino effect of GDP.
How is it "spiraling down" Dan? That's not what I'm seeing.
Last five years , it seems kinda herky-jerky.
I don't expect to see $0 anytime soon.
"IMO I don't see a huge problem right now with the deficit. Yes it has disadvantages but could become even worse in the cycle if we put all our resources into adressing the debt load thereby having a much harsher domino effect of GDP. "
So $550 billion in tax cuts suits you just fine?
""I'm not a journailst but from what I understand they were the benchmark. I wonder who will take that posistion now ?"
The New York Times, but there will be a shakeup.
For coverage, style and depth, there's no other paper in the US that's even close.
Well there's the alternative which would be that if the other party was in power we'd be spending it anyways. Gebhardt's medical plan would cost much more. Over 200 million per year just to start. The tax cut is over 10 years and would likely change with new admins etc. Nope no crys of deficits then. Then it's o.k I guess. Either way it has to come from somewhere. Personally I'd rather put it back into the economy than spend it.
I know that Democrats in general don't think that tax cuts stimulate the economy. They do. For instance I needed new computers for my business. The others were getting pretty old as well as some of my other office equippment. There was a tax-cut for new office equippment. Or I should say a larger portion would be able to be written off if bought before last November I believe as an incentive. I was planning to wait until next year to do that but because of the credit I did. They got sales tax on my purchases, the purchases keep people employed that make and sell them. The company that does is taxed on their profit, the workers are taxed on their wages as well, in turn they are able to go out and buy things which they are taxed on that employ more people.
The other option is that they wouldn't have given that credit. I would have waited to buy new stuff. Now they would have eventually got it but who knows when. It was an incentive for me to do so. If they decided to not give credits but say increase taxes I certainly wouldn't have bought new stuff as it's a small margin I operate under. Had they decided to raise taxes I probably wouldn't have been able to hire another part time person who in turn contributes to the economy through taxes and purchaes. This I realize is a simplistic microcosm of our economy but multiply that with the thousands of small business owners and coporations.
A new spending program isn't going to stimulate the economy, people spending money does. It's simple math, the more they have the more they spend and the more they are taxed in the long run throught what they purchase and those purchases employ people. It's a wonderful cycle that's worked well. When you take a part of the cycle away or make one side too heavy it doesn't work. When revenues are higher the deficit takes care of itself as long as the politicians don't use it for more spending. Something they're all guilty of.
How is it "spiraling down" Dan? That's not what I'm seeing.
What I am seeing is assuming that the average per month continues, we are saving more than $64 Billion this year alone compared to 1998. What should we be doing with this extra money that has been taken from the taxpayers?
So $550 billion in tax cuts suits you just fine?
Divide that $550 billion by 10 years and that comes to an average of $55 billion per year. $64 billion (saved in interest this year) - $55 billion (per year taxcut) = $9 billion left over this year alone.
You don't like the debt? Let's use the $9 billion dollars we just saved to pay it down. As I have shown earlier, there is debt held by the public and there is intragovernmental holdings. Which way should we go? Do you prefer retiring some of the publicly held debt (sorry grandma, you have to take this money back and find another way to invest it that involves more risk) or should we repay the intragovernmental debt and what would social security excesses be invested in? If I am not mistaken, by federal law that money must be invested in federal securities, which in turn runs the debt right back up to where it was.
I know I have simplified the numbers for the sake of debate, but they all add up to the real numbers over the long term. So what is your answer? What would president Rick do?
Fix Social Security (I'm sure something is needed) and pay down the debt.
Foregoing tax cuts is not much of a sacrifice to fight the WOT, wouldn't you agree, Dan?
Fix Social Security (I'm sure something is needed)
Like personal accounts that can be invested in anyway the contributor wishes?
I doubt it needs anything else since they are taking in more money then they need. Granted that money is for future payments, but apparently, nothing is needed now or it would be taken from the excess.
and pay down the debt.
Since excess government funds (by law) are to by used to buy government securities creating more debt, I guess you are telling grandma that she needs to find a riskier way to invest her savings? I can hear Wellstone turning in his grave over that comment. Not very Democrat of you now is it?
Foregoing tax cuts is not much of a sacrifice to fight the WOT, wouldn't you agree, Dan?
Apparently, we can do both just using the savings on interest payments alone.
So spending more money than is taken in is now part of preserving the social safety net for the elderly? It's a duty, almost patriotic?
Throwing Wellstone philosophy at me is not helping your case, Dan. Considering the source, it makes it more suspect.
Just admit you want the tax cut and you think the debt is irrelevant, because its lost in cats cradle of accounting tricks and a flurry of paper that could fill stadiums. But, I get the feeling, in years on, something is going to happen and it's not good. Common sense dictates it. Why does the European Union caution member states when their deficits run too high? I don't think Brussels is praising them for fiscal health.
And if the economy improves, it will be on its own accord, and the tax cut will be equally irrelevant. A small groupof wealthy people will see some real reductions. and the rest of us won't even notice it.
But the White House will stake the bogus cliam that it saved the economy. It will be as bogus as the claim that the Clinton White House made that the tax increase of '93 contributed to several years of budget surpluses.
"Apparently, we can do both just using the savings on interest payments alone."
Which would, in essence return interest payments to traditional levels, right? Tell me the benefit of that.
Both sides have valid points here.
I wish there were some sort of compromise.
So spending more money than is taken in is now part of preserving the social safety net for the elderly? It's a duty, almost patriotic?
Who is saying that we should spend more? What is being asked is that we let people keep more of the money that they earn in order to help the economy get going. But that wouldn't fit into the Democrat's agenda now would it?
Throwing Wellstone philosophy at me is not helping your case, Dan. Considering the source, it makes it more suspect.
So Wellstone would like you to tell people who invest money into safe government securities to find something more risky? Nice.
Just admit you want the tax cut and you think the debt is irrelevant, because its lost in cats cradle of accounting tricks and a flurry of paper that could fill stadiums.
It is lost in accounting tricks that would bring down any normal buisiness, but that is not the reason for taxcuts. I was just wondering how you would pay off the debt and have not got a straight answer on that question yet.
But, I get the feeling, in years on, something is going to happen and it's not good. Common sense dictates it. Why does the European Union caution member states when their deficits run too high? I don't think Brussels is praising them for fiscal health.
Which is better for the debt Rick, Kerry's health care idea (which in his estimate will cost at least $720 billion over the next 10 years) or the taxcuts which will provide jobs and more taxes (house version will cost $550 billion, senate version $350 billion)?
And if the economy improves, it will be on its own accord, and the tax cut will be equally irrelevant. A small groupof wealthy people will see some real reductions. and the rest of us won't even notice it.
Already giving excuses for when the economy improves due to taxcuts huh?
You can go to this linkand figure your reduction. I will save about 10% on my taxes. I think that I will notice that.
But the White House will stake the bogus cliam that it saved the economy. It will be as bogus as the claim that the Clinton White House made that the tax increase of '93 contributed to several years of budget surpluses.
So are you claiming that the president has little to do with the economy? I'll have to bookmark this one for later when you are telling us how Bush destroyed the economy.
"Apparently, we can do both just using the savings on interest payments alone."
Which would, in essence return interest payments to traditional levels, right? Tell me the benefit of that.
I don't understand how you came up with that one.
There is, but due to selfish interests on both sides, it will not be forthcoming anytime soon.
What is your suggestion then?
I'd save about 5%. I'll take it.
I suggest that since the government has expanded more in the last two years than at ANY time since the 1930's,
Have any data to back this statement up? It might be true, but it may be because of more spending on homeland defense.
I guess that he doesn't, Wolvie.
Fact is, I am not in the upper 5-10%. I would be surprised if I am even in the upper 50%. I would save almost 10% on my taxes as I stated earlier, so I guess that old party line of yours doesn't hold any water.
I went back to that site and put in my information again and changed the income to $1,000,000, everything else was the same. My current income gets me a tax savings of 9.59%, the $1,000,000 wage gets a tax savings of 8.70%. Try it for yourselves and see what you get. Hardly a giveaway to the rich if I get a bigger percent back now is it?
Let's assume for a minute that you are correct though. Let's give the upper folks the money. What do you think that they would do with it? Invest it in business and create new jobs helping those out of work to get a job?
You still didn't tell us which debt you would pay down. Would it be intragovernmental and what would they do with the money, or would it be the public debt? Some more information before you decide... according to The Bond Market Association, individuals hold about 12.0% of the public debt, pensions hold about 8.8%, Banks 6.9%, State & Local gov. 2.5%, Insurance companies 3.6%, etc. What would you suggest that these groups do with the money that you wish to repay? Would you like to see more pension or social security money in the stock market? Perhaps you prefer that banks put money in the stock market or should the VA just bury it's excess monies in a mason jar in Al Gore's backyard? He could finally have that lockbox he so desperately wanted.
Tough decision.
OK, Dan,, I'm assuming you addressed this to me: Correct me if I'm wrong.
"You still didn't tell us which debt you would pay down. "
You're throwing out so many numbers and running me in so many circles, and telliing me I don't know what I'm talking about. It's the equivalent of a document dump. If you want to play the game that way, that's fine. But I'll take that into account should I decide to engage you in the future.
I'll sit at your feet and you can explain why the debt should not be an issue, and it's irrelevant, nd tax cuts are more important. And then you can feel like the lecturer you wanna be. I'm wondering what YOU think. I'm not interested in a paper chase.
and by the way..
(But, I get the feeling, in years on, something is going to happen and it's not good. Common sense dictates it. Why does the European Union caution member states when their deficits run too high? I don't think Brussels is praising them for fiscal health. )
You really didn't answer that point either. I don't know why you're dragging John Kerry into this.
Is debt fiscally healthy, and something that should be essentially ignored?
Bill,
I really would be interested to see the numbers showing that we.
"I suggest that since the government has expanded more in the last two years than at ANY time since the 1930's,"
If you have something on that I'd appreciate it.
OK, Dan,, I'm assuming you addressed this to me: Correct me if I'm wrong.
Actually, it was to Fold who addressed the topic last. Feel free to comment though.
You're throwing out so many numbers and running me in so many circles, and telliing me I don't know what I'm talking about. It's the equivalent of a document dump. If you want to play the game that way, that's fine. But I'll take that into account should I decide to engage you in the future.
Sorry if you feel overwhelmed. I thought that you should see what I have found on the net to bolster my arguement, otherwise there would be those here crying for proof. I have seen it so many times that I just naturally provide the proof from the beginning.
I do not believe that I ever told you that you do not know what your are talking about. I like these discussions because I have learned more here than I ever did in school. There are many who know more about subjects than I do and many others who challenge me to prove my points. This is what has taught me a lot over the years.
I'll sit at your feet and you can explain why the debt should not be an issue, and it's irrelevant, nd tax cuts are more important. And then you can feel like the lecturer you wanna be. I'm wondering what YOU think. I'm not interested in a paper chase.
Pfft... you don't sit at my feet or anyone elses for that matter. A lecturer is the last thing that I want to be.
I have always felt that the debt is an issue, but needs to be kept within certain context. For example, was it an issue when Clinton was bragging that the budget was balanced? No, but it should have been, as the debt continued to grow the whole time. How can you balance a budget with debt? That was not a balanced budget.
Currently, we use a disgraceful manner of bookeeping. The Social Security funds have excessive amounts, so they borrow it to the Federal government in the form of non-negotiable bonds and they spend it. There is nothing left. When time comes to repay, there will be hikes in taxes or cuts in spending. Since both parties have their pet projects, the tax hikes will probably be what passes hurting the economy. If they save the money and invest it in stocks and such, there will be cries about wasting money on the stock market. Therefore,I feel the Social Security fund should collect what they need and no more. The Feds should collect what they need and no more. It is easier for our reps to spend money than to make cuts.
and by the way..
(But, I get the feeling, in years on, something is going to happen and it's not good. Common sense dictates it. Why does the European Union caution member states when their deficits run too high? I don't think Brussels is praising them for fiscal health. )
You really didn't answer that point either.
I am not up on their reasons or what debt they are talking about, so I cannot answer.
I don't know why you're dragging John Kerry into this.
Because he is a Democratic contender stating his beliefs on health care. His plan would add tremendously to the problems with our fiscal health. I noticed that you didn't address the debt that he would create.
Is debt fiscally healthy, and something that should be essentially ignored?
It depends. It should never be ignored, but debt can be good in some instances. To simplify this, interest is at a record low. Would someone with enough income to afford house payments buy a house or rent until they have saved up enough money to pay cash for a house? With the prices of things going up, is it wise to borrow enough money to do that addition that you have been thinking about or should you save up enough cash first? On the other hand, somone making minimum wage should not be looking at houses, new cars, boat, etc.
So if a tax break can stir the economy enough to create more jobs and more taxes, I say go for it.
Where does debt come from ?
Spending more than you take in.
Suddenly Democrats are worried about spending ?
"Suddenly Democrats are worried about spending ?
No, not suddenly.
Gee, you finally talking to me again?
Ok, when did I stop talking to you???
I wish it wasn't because you are trying to needle me for info you already know is true, but... Have a nice day anyway.
Never mind then. Ask a simple question.....
:::Slams head on desk:::
I will never understand this place.
Got another beer for me, Wolvie?
"Suddenly Democrats are worried about spending ?
Well then what are you worried about deficits for ?
Because they seem to come year after year again, now.
I don't personally lie awake worrying about them (but I have had dreams that I've accumulated more debt than I can ever pay back), but as matter of discussion, I think they're an issue that should be addressed.
And what does a person usually do if they take on too much debt ?
Usually they freak out.
Got another beer for me, Wolvie?
You bet Rick!
:::Tosses Rick a cold one:::
Sorry no French wine today. =)
I talked to a dealer in French wine a couple weeks ago. He said he thinks the downturn in US sales will be short lived. But he admitted that they've taken a hit in the US.
I've also talked to some people in French tourism. They were in Minneapolis last week.
Deals to be had for Americans who want to visit France. Cheap travel this summer. Made me wistful. Wish I had the schedule freedom to go.
20% !
http://24hour.startribune.com/24hour/opinions/story/891102p-6207573c.html
That just can't be!
You must be toying with us, Luv.
Nope,
JFK cut taxes 20% Could you imagine if Bush proposed that now ? We'd become Mexico overnight I'm sure. The funny part is........................The tax cuts actually worked ! Hmm what do you know, when you give people a bit more, they spend a bit more, they invest more and hire more and guess what ? Tax collections actually go up because their's more out there to be taxed ta da ! What a concept. JFK knew it and did it. Too bad the sky is falling crowd doesn't get it. Their solution ? just tax more and thing will get better.
If you check your history, you may find that JFK wanted tax rates dropped for low and middle income Americans. Can't verify that off the top of my head, but I can be corrected, if need be.
Also, I don't think dividend taxes were part of the Kennedy equation.
And, remember, this was pre-Reagan tax rates.
Otherwise, hey, it's exactly the same as today.
Not!!!!