Republican fiscal responsibility: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...p/20030203/ap_on_go_pr_wh/budget_30&printer=1 WASHINGTON - Even though hundreds of other government programs would be squeezed, the president projects the deficit will still hit record highs of $304 billion this year and $307 billion in 2004. Over the next five years, deficits would total $1.08 trillion. Taken together, all the new tax cuts Bush is proposing would add up to $1.3 trillion over the next decade, on top of the $1.35 trillion tax reduction passed in 2001. The president blamed the deficits "on a recession and a war we did not choose." Comedy Gold.
And Tom DeLay said that Bush's tax cuts are a floor, not a ceiling. He vowed to push bigger cuts through the House to promote as big a growth package as possible.
With all the new spending I figured Democrats would be overjoyed. The lack of fiscal discipline on the part of the Bush Administration is really disappointing.
The budget works out to $7000 per person. That means the U.S. government will spend $21K on my family next year. We're worth it. But that welfare queen Segroves will get $35K. I'm glad he snipped it before the country went broke.
As with most things in life, you have to ask the age-old question: Compared to What?? Reasonable people can argue over the merits of WHAT we're spending our money on -- from pork barrel programs, to environmental regulation, to the Space Shuttle, to the war. But there is no dispute that as a % of annual GDP -- THE significant "compared to what?" measurement -- this budget deficit is...well, "modest" is a word that springs to mind, even in the context of a couple hundred billion, give or take a billion or two. Now in the Reagan years, THOSE were budget deficits, you know, the really MEATY kind, in some years north of 6% of annual GDP. And even after THOSE, we still have the greatest economy that humankind has ever seen.
And maybe BECAUSE of those, we have the greatest economy that humankind has ever seen. Lowering the top tax bracket from 70% to 28% was one of the greatest achievements of the last half Century. Kennedy cut the rates from 90% to 70% and Reagan finished the job. Our booming economy since the early 80s is directly attributable to that cut. Of course, I expect the socialists and quasi-communists here on Big Soccer to weigh in very soon with their misguided, class-envy opinions.
I'm lacking in the class envy area but if you give Reagan credit for all the good things that happened on his watch do you give GW the credit for the lame state of our current economy?
I'm not a socialist or commie but I've got to laugh at your first statement. Greatest economy ever seen, huh? I guess if your one of the wealthy class it must certainly seem so but if you are not so fortunate you'd have to argue with Ian's silly boast. Shouldn't the greatest economy improve the lives of all citizens? Shouldn't each generation's prospect for a better life increase? How can you a describe an economy that has produced stagnant and declining wages for the vast majority of its citizens for the last three decades, has reduced the real wealth of this group every year, has left tens of millions of them with no health insurance, and reduced job security to a fairy tale as a great economy? I really wish that people like you would be forced to switch places with an underemployed, single mother with a child who has a chronic illness but no benefits from her job. After a day, I'd have you fired (so that the CEO can pump up the firm's stock price before he takes his $60m golden parachute) and forced to make ends meet on your savings ($0) and the meager "benefits" from the government. Of course you'll have trouble finding a new job so you'll take whatever work you can get even if it is at night so you never get to see you child. There is no work in your neighborhood so you have to take two buses and a subway ride each way to commute to work. You spend 4 hours a day on public transportation. I'm sure that your child will develop perfectly with limited parental oversight and guidance. If you're lucky you might make $8/hour as an "independant contractor" working 35 hours a week as a telemarketer. Of course you get no benefits. The stress and lack of preventative healthcare for you lead to a series of health problems. The illnesses force you to miss work and since you get no sick days that means no income for every day you are sick. If you are lucky enough to meet someone at work and get married, you're real income could actually decrease due to our insane tax policies and the low cutoffs for almost all aspects of the social safety net. Maybe you realize this prior to getting married, so you instead live together to try to make the most of both puny incomes. Of course social conservatives decry your version of a family but who cares since you were already looked down on because you didn't want to raise your kid with his abusive father. I guess you can try getting help from some of Bush's faith-based groups? Of course as a muslim woman, you'll have to put up with their christian rhetoric that offends you. Who cares? The poor shouldn't have the right to get necessary services and respect for the religion at the same time. It gets worse. Your kid starts having trouble at school which no surprise since he attends one of the worst schools in the city. You can't afford to live in those well off communities that significantly raise the budgets of their schools with high revenue from property taxes. You take off work (more lost income) to attend a parent teacher conference. Your son has a learning disability and needs to be sent to a "special school" better able to deal with his problem. However, recent budget cuts have limited the children they can take so your child won't be sent there this year. He'll just continue to fall behind. I could go on forever but I'll end by looking ahead four decades. You are 65 and in failing health. Your boyfiend/husband died last week from heart disease (if only you had any healthcare for him). He had no life insurance so you now have to try to make it on your income alone. Your son, unable to find work for someone with poor academic record and constant chronic illness, got involved in the only industry willing to pay him a living wage, namely crime. Now he is serving 10-25 up state (200 miles from your apartment) on drug charges. You cry as you compare his fate to the latest CEO to get convicted of stealing the retirement funds of 30k of his workers. He got off with 2 years in a low security prison and a fine. You don't have any money or a car to visit your son so you haven't seen him in the last 15 months. You want to retire but your total retirement savings are zero. You can't live on Social security and you have no money to pay for the 5 perscriptions you need just to stay alive. You were never able to buy a house (the downpayments were too high for someone living paycheck to paycheck and your credit record was hurt each time you were fired or did not have enough money to pay every bill each month) so you are still renting. You have no assets. You decide to pay your rent rather than take your diabetes medicine for all 4 weeks each month. You go into a coma. Lucky for you the state covers your hospital care for the 3 weeks it takes you to die! Welcome to the greatest economy that humankind has ever seen! Ian, I don't think it would take even a week of living her life for your rosy view of our economy to be cast aside.
The Reagan-era economic boom was nothing compared to the Clinton-era boom, when federal taxes were raised on the top earners. The idea that all money not paid to government is churning the economy while all money paid to govt is sent down a bottomless pit is just as crazy as saying that every govt program we have now needs to be protected and enhanced. No wonder Colin is bummed: This is a definite Keynesian moment for Dubya, though a prototypical Keynesian would turn the spending pump off after a couple of years.
> This is a definite Keynesian moment for Dubya If Bush was really Keynesian, he wouldn't be putting the "stimulus" money into the military, which is just about the worst place to put it if your goal is to get money into the private economy.
In my state (NJ) the deficit as percentage of the budget is higher than the national. We have a Democrat Governor who raised taxes. So you can't correlate Bush's tax cuts to the increased deficit. All states are suffering because of the economic slowdown that began in the summer of Clinton's last year in office and worsened after Sept. 11. In regards to crediting Clinton. Lets not forget that the economy came out of recession by the time Clinton took over. Clinton also substantially cut defense spending which led to lower deficits. Still, Clinton's budgets forcasted large deficits as far as the eye can see. The Republicans took over the House and Senate, forced further spending and tax cuts. Including lowering the rate increases of entitlement spending. We also had a tech boom and interest rate cuts. So giving credit soley to Clinton for the economy is a mistake.
Yes you can. The math is simple. Deficit over next 5 years: 1.08 trillion Tax Cuts over next 5 years: 2.65 billion
One thing that can be proven without doubt is that the Congressional Budget Office has been consistently wrong. During Clinton's term, we got a balanced budget three years before CBO predictions. The CBO also estimated that any dollar put back into the pocket of the consumer is a dollar lost from tax revenue. What happens to tax revenue when someone has more money in their pocket. And that person spends more and businesses make more. They pay MORE in taxes.
And you're claiming that any dollar put back into the pocket of the consumer is two dollars gained in tax revenue? Because that's the only way Bush doesn't force this deficit with his tax cuts.
I'm not claiming that. Some people believe in a Laffer curve where you have a maximum tax rate. Any rate lower or higher then you decrease revenue. After Reagan's large tax cuts revenue rose from 550 billion in 1981 to 990 billion in 1989. Deficits rose but so did spending. I don't know exactly how much tax revenue is affected by tax cuts or tax increases, however, neither does the CBO nor the liberals on this board. However, there is no doubt that people spend more when they have more in their pockets rather than less.
I want your source for this. Because I'm 99.9% sure that these numbers are NOT income tax rates, but total tax receipts. Which means you've left out the payroll tax increases. But I want to see the source so I can be sure. I really, really get tired of these tax debates on bigsoccer where dittoheads regurgitate numbers that are for income tax receipts, but act like they're for total tax receipts, and vice versa. There's a reason the liberals at bigsoccer are all arrogant a**holes. It's because we really do know more than you do.
Payroll taxes were dramatically increased in 1981, I'll agree with that. However, deficits rose sharply. In 1985 income tax rates were cut and payroll taxes were left alone and the deficit came down dramatically. When Bush Sr. raised income taxes, the deficits rose to its highest levels. If you're looking for a study of how much each tax,fee and tariff was increased/decreaed and how it affected the overall revenue then you'll never find that answer. It can be interpreted many ways. Also, I am not a dittohead even though you're a Left-Wing communist with a hammer and sickle tatoo on your ass.