With such a huge debt how can the USA afford tax cuts?
When President Bush took over office, America was increadibly healthy. Now look at it. It is in a tatters, absolutely shredded by a war mongering President that has done more to damage the USA on the world stage in his term than possibly any other President.
I live in Australia and we have one of the highest taxation schemes of anyone in the USA or EU. We don’t have a deficit, much like the USA before President Bush.
President Bush is aligned with the Republicans because their way of thinking suits him. But his agenda is much more personal than that.
toast - 09:03pm on 03/24/2006
Tax cuts increase revenue in a free enterprise economy. Kennedy knew it, Reagan knew it, and GW knows it.
robert108 - 11:03pm on 03/24/2006
I bet even McAir knows it, despite his denials... (Can’t figure out his schtick, however.)
Tom_with_a_Dream - 12:03am on 03/25/2006
Tax cuts increase revenue in a free enterprise economy. Kennedy knew it, Reagan knew it, and GW knows it.
When we eventually stop voting morons for President, he/she will be forced to raise taxes.
When you double the national debt inside 5 years (and who knows where it will be when Bush packs his bags) it is going to be difficult for increasing population/productivity (the real reason that tax revenues rise over time) to overcome the repayment burden. Read Bartlett’s article above. He was Reagan’s
Right now, 20 cents for every dollar of tax revenue goes to service the existing debt. We borrow $3 Billion per day from China and Japan. At some point, we have to start paying bills.
Yes, he did… after campaigning on a very public promise not to do so (“…Read my lips&rdquo . It cost him his re-election. His opponent, Bill Clinton, campaigned for a year pledging to cut taxes. As soon as he was inaugurated, his first action was to raise taxes. It would not be the last time Clinton lied to the American people.
“At some point we have to start paying bills.”
A truly admirable sentiment. However, in the first place we are at war, and are likely to remain so for some time to come. That has to take precedence over all other considerations.
Second is the question of how one goes about reducing the budget deficit. The Democratic response is positively Pavlovian in its predictability. Raise taxes. The problem is that doing so will not solve the deficit. Raising taxes will increase revenue in the short term, but it will also reduce long term economic growth, thereby reducing future tax revenues. Cutting taxes, on the other hand, actually increases not just the economy’s growth, but the rate of tax revenue growth to the Treasury. The problem isn’t a revenue problem, but a spending problem. Most people, when faced with a personal budget problem, try to cut back on their spending, not increase it, and increase their income at the same time. That approach is what’s called common sense.
Which brings us back to the question of sentiment. Because the fact of the matter is the left doesn’t have much credibility in this area at all. And that’s putting most kindly, indeed. Given the chance to address the pending Social Security funding crisis last year, the Democrats refused to even sit down and discuss the issue. To date not one Democrat has come forth with any sort of serious suggestion to reduce even the wasteful government spending. Never mind one to address the more serious budgetary concerns.
One week ago, the Democrats announced their “budget” plan. It called for nearly $150 billion in new spending. Not cuts, but plenty more spending. And that doesn’t include the Dems’ proposal to reduce military spending so that even more can be spent domestically. A military spending cut during a war.
Its hard to escape the conclusion that Democrats really haven’t a clue. Questions about our country’s finances, like those of military and national security affairs, are simply beyond the capability of those in the minority party to comprehend… much less address in a rational manner.
Bat One - 09:03am on 03/25/2006
Yes, he did… after campaigning on a very public promise not to do so (“…Read my lips&rdquo . It cost him his re-election. His opponent, Bill Clinton, campaigned for a year pledging to cut taxes. As soon as he was inaugurated, his first action was to raise taxes. It would not be the last time Clinton lied to the American people.
George HW Bush "broke a promise" but Clinton "lied". Okay....
“At some point we have to start paying bills.” A truly admirable sentiment. However, in the first place we are at war, and are likely to remain so for some time to come. That has to take precedence over all other considerations.
You know that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are "off budget" right? That means they aren’t included in the official debt numbers. So our debt is rising to insane levels, and yet we won’t admit to another $1 Trillion thats hidden under the rug. Okay....
A military spending cut during a war vs. tax-cuts during a war. First time we’ve ever tried that. Guns and Butter anyone?
The fact is we could be a lot smarter in our defense spending. Tanks and "star wars" systems ain’t worth a whole lot in fighting a global war on terrorism. We aren’t necessarily fighting nation states this time - so investment in heavy artillery is redundant.
Its hard to escape the conclusion that Democrats really haven’t a clue. Questions about our country’s finances, like those of military and national security affairs, are simply beyond the capability of those in the minority party to comprehend… much less address in a rational manner.
Are you going to tell me that it’s the Republicans that are on the ball? Five years of war and recession and you’re trying to push that? No-one is buying that baloney anymore. That fact is, Republicans cannot be trusted to manage finances. One example: the oil companies are making a killing, and yet we’re giving them tax-breaks. On what fiscal planet must you be living on to make that call? Look at prescription drugs in Medicare Reform. The republicans introduced language (or rather allow pharma lobbyists to) that actually prevents the government from negoitiating on drug prices. Ain’t that special!
Given the chance to address the pending Social Security funding crisis last year, the Democrats refused to even sit down and discuss the issue. That’s easy. Eliminate the cap in FICA and medicare payroll taxes. Bush’s private account plans required a $1 Trillion just to get it started - money Bush proposed would come from the Trust Fund. Sorry George, you’ve already drained that account.
To date not one Democrat has come forth with any sort of serious suggestion to reduce even the wasteful government spending. Hello? The Republicans control all three branches of government. They can pass any spending reduction bill they like. They haven’t. The Democrats have no power (and no balls).
mcair - 10:03am on 03/25/2006
McAir,
The fact is that nothing you’ve posted here would lead anyone to think that Democrats have anything to offer the country other than higher taxes… and higher spending as well. Nothing!
You dislike corporate subsidies and tax breaks. I’ll agree to that. Cut them out. Corporations don’t pau taxes anyway. Not really/ Let’s scrap the ridiculous income tax system entirely, repeal the odious 15th Amendment, and institute a national sales tax instead. It would be way more efficient, and way less cumbersome.
As for Republicans and Democrats, I have not said that GOP stewardship has been anything to crow about. On the contrary I am bitterly disappointed in the stupid, Democrat-style behavior of Congressional Republicans when it comes to our country’s finances, as both my Senators and my Congressman have been made well aware. What I have said is that there is absolutely no reason to think that Democrats even understand the true nature of our fiscal problems… as you yourself have pointed out here.
Raise Taxes! The Left’s tedious secular Rosary.
Bat One - 07:03pm on 03/25/2006
Bat: You forgot to mention mcair’s lie about being in a recession for five years.
With such a huge debt how can the USA afford tax cuts?
When President Bush took over office, America was increadibly healthy. Now look at it. It is in a tatters, absolutely shredded by a war mongering President that has done more to damage the USA on the world stage in his term than possibly any other President.
I live in Australia and we have one of the highest taxation schemes of anyone in the USA or EU. We don’t have a deficit, much like the USA before President Bush.
President Bush is aligned with the Republicans because their way of thinking suits him. But his agenda is much more personal than that.
Tax cuts increase revenue in a free enterprise economy. Kennedy knew it, Reagan knew it, and GW knows it.
I bet even McAir knows it, despite his denials... (Can’t figure out his schtick, however.)
Tax cuts increase revenue in a free enterprise economy. Kennedy knew it, Reagan knew it, and GW knows it.
Reagan also raised taxes: http://www.fairmark.com/news/reagan.htm and still left office having increased the national debt by $2 Trillion. Look at this chart depicting the precipitous rise in the debt during the Bush II presidency: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html.
Bush’s father raised taxes.
When we eventually stop voting morons for President, he/she will be forced to raise taxes.
When you double the national debt inside 5 years (and who knows where it will be when Bush packs his bags) it is going to be difficult for increasing population/productivity (the real reason that tax revenues rise over time) to overcome the repayment burden. Read Bartlett’s article above. He was Reagan’s
Right now, 20 cents for every dollar of tax revenue goes to service the existing debt. We borrow $3 Billion per day from China and Japan. At some point, we have to start paying bills.
For the record, the comment entry gizmo sucks.
Yes,
RadicalRuss.net | Bush Approval Map
“Bush’s father raised taxes.’
Yes, he did… after campaigning on a very public promise not to do so (“…Read my lips&rdquo
. It cost him his re-election. His opponent, Bill Clinton, campaigned for a year pledging to cut taxes. As soon as he was inaugurated, his first action was to raise taxes. It would not be the last time Clinton lied to the American people.
“At some point we have to start paying bills.”
A truly admirable sentiment. However, in the first place we are at war, and are likely to remain so for some time to come. That has to take precedence over all other considerations.
Second is the question of how one goes about reducing the budget deficit. The Democratic response is positively Pavlovian in its predictability. Raise taxes. The problem is that doing so will not solve the deficit. Raising taxes will increase revenue in the short term, but it will also reduce long term economic growth, thereby reducing future tax revenues. Cutting taxes, on the other hand, actually increases not just the economy’s growth, but the rate of tax revenue growth to the Treasury. The problem isn’t a revenue problem, but a spending problem. Most people, when faced with a personal budget problem, try to cut back on their spending, not increase it, and increase their income at the same time. That approach is what’s called common sense.
Which brings us back to the question of sentiment. Because the fact of the matter is the left doesn’t have much credibility in this area at all. And that’s putting most kindly, indeed. Given the chance to address the pending Social Security funding crisis last year, the Democrats refused to even sit down and discuss the issue. To date not one Democrat has come forth with any sort of serious suggestion to reduce even the wasteful government spending. Never mind one to address the more serious budgetary concerns.
One week ago, the Democrats announced their “budget” plan. It called for nearly $150 billion in new spending. Not cuts, but plenty more spending. And that doesn’t include the Dems’ proposal to reduce military spending so that even more can be spent domestically. A military spending cut during a war.
Its hard to escape the conclusion that Democrats really haven’t a clue. Questions about our country’s finances, like those of military and national security affairs, are simply beyond the capability of those in the minority party to comprehend… much less address in a rational manner.
Yes, he did… after campaigning on a very public promise not to do so (“…Read my lips&rdquo
. It cost him his re-election. His opponent, Bill Clinton, campaigned for a year pledging to cut taxes. As soon as he was inaugurated, his first action was to raise taxes. It would not be the last time Clinton lied to the American people.
George HW Bush "broke a promise" but Clinton "lied". Okay....
“At some point we have to start paying bills.” A truly admirable sentiment. However, in the first place we are at war, and are likely to remain so for some time to come. That has to take precedence over all other considerations.
You know that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are "off budget" right? That means they aren’t included in the official debt numbers. So our debt is rising to insane levels, and yet we won’t admit to another $1 Trillion thats hidden under the rug. Okay....
A military spending cut during a war vs. tax-cuts during a war. First time we’ve ever tried that. Guns and Butter anyone?
The fact is we could be a lot smarter in our defense spending. Tanks and "star wars" systems ain’t worth a whole lot in fighting a global war on terrorism. We aren’t necessarily fighting nation states this time - so investment in heavy artillery is redundant.
Its hard to escape the conclusion that Democrats really haven’t a clue. Questions about our country’s finances, like those of military and national security affairs, are simply beyond the capability of those in the minority party to comprehend… much less address in a rational manner.
Are you going to tell me that it’s the Republicans that are on the ball? Five years of war and recession and you’re trying to push that? No-one is buying that baloney anymore. That fact is, Republicans cannot be trusted to manage finances. One example: the oil companies are making a killing, and yet we’re giving them tax-breaks. On what fiscal planet must you be living on to make that call? Look at prescription drugs in Medicare Reform. The republicans introduced language (or rather allow pharma lobbyists to) that actually prevents the government from negoitiating on drug prices. Ain’t that special!
Given the chance to address the pending Social Security funding crisis last year, the Democrats refused to even sit down and discuss the issue. That’s easy. Eliminate the cap in FICA and medicare payroll taxes. Bush’s private account plans required a $1 Trillion just to get it started - money Bush proposed would come from the Trust Fund. Sorry George, you’ve already drained that account.
To date not one Democrat has come forth with any sort of serious suggestion to reduce even the wasteful government spending. Hello? The Republicans control all three branches of government. They can pass any spending reduction bill they like. They haven’t. The Democrats have no power (and no balls).
McAir,
The fact is that nothing you’ve posted here would lead anyone to think that Democrats have anything to offer the country other than higher taxes… and higher spending as well. Nothing!
You dislike corporate subsidies and tax breaks. I’ll agree to that. Cut them out. Corporations don’t pau taxes anyway. Not really/ Let’s scrap the ridiculous income tax system entirely, repeal the odious 15th Amendment, and institute a national sales tax instead. It would be way more efficient, and way less cumbersome.
As for Republicans and Democrats, I have not said that GOP stewardship has been anything to crow about. On the contrary I am bitterly disappointed in the stupid, Democrat-style behavior of Congressional Republicans when it comes to our country’s finances, as both my Senators and my Congressman have been made well aware. What I have said is that there is absolutely no reason to think that Democrats even understand the true nature of our fiscal problems… as you yourself have pointed out here.
Raise Taxes! The Left’s tedious secular Rosary.
Bat: You forgot to mention mcair’s lie about being in a recession for five years.