Keep it real and keep it civil.

What about our 'civil' rights?

Keep it real and keep it civil.

What about our 'civil' rights?

is it better to fund our deficits by borrowing monies or to not have cut the taxes in the first place?

bear in mind that wage-earning citizens pay all the bills anyway regardless of whether it's hidden by deficit borrowing or outright taxes.

yes, I know, the best solution is to not have deficits of course. but we all know that fiscal conservatives (republicans AND democrats) are a distinct minority.

so...borrow or tax?

LaMano

You are fighting a war on terror. You are expected to forsake your civil rights to win this war. To do otherwise, would make you a traitor to your country. You no longer live in a free and democratic society. As the followers of Bush say, if you complain, you are with the terrorists.
So, shut up & sit down.

for all the talk about a GOP wipeout,looking at the polls of individual races shows that the horror shows titled "speaker"pelosi and "majority leader"reid are not going to happen.

Polls out today show that Bush's approval ratings have sunk to levels not seen since the magnificent Nixon administration.

Were the Congress not so shamelessly compliant, the media less gonadically-challenged and the American people less distracted by Paris Hilton and American Idol perhaps Bush's presidency would reach a Nixonian conclusion as well.

Now there's a happy thought for a Friday!

Ohio,
All I ask that we frame the debate on the debt as it really is; it is not borrowing in the traditional sense; it is funding the deficit via the issuance of government bonds.

In fact, think of your local or State elections; how many times have you voted a “Bond Measure” to fund some project or worthwhile cause, like school or prison or freeway construction? Who do you think buys those bonds? This is the very debt we deride.

People and entities buy government bonds and hold them to maturity. The vast majority of the debt is held by the average Joe-six-pack that you mentioned, in retirement funds and personal investments in the bonds market. Your are 100% right on one thing I gleened from your post; Tax and spend is a worse alternative; it just slows the economy down to the point that no one benefits.

To "borrow" from the future, as the liberals claim would be the Keynesian economics that they so fondly embrace. This would involve the government ordering goods and services, then paying with “script” or requiring that the seller take bonds in payment. While this was done under FDR, neither of these things is done now.

OhioOrrin, your premise is faulty, I'm afraid. If the taxes had not been cut, we wouldn't be seeing 4.7% unemployment and we wouldn't have the large tax base that is currently funding the government.

Deficits decrease because government reduces spending, not increasing taxes. Any retail store manager will tell you, that when you lower the price of something, you'll sell more. When you lower the taxes on an activity that activity will increase. Pretty simple economics really.

Ohio,

Take a basic economics class. Reducing taxes has RAISED TAX REVENUES BEYOND EXPECTATIONS. Same as it did under Reagan and JFK.

If you don't understand; the class will explain it. Pay attention when they discuss the Laffler curve that was the hot topic in the early 80's.

LaMano - yes I'm aware of the proposition that "cutting taxes actually creates more revenue through growth".

I took enough college econ to know that is economic theory not law. Are you aware that many personal financial advisors tell clients in debt to spend cash only & not use credit?

To prove the proposition, one would need identical side-by-side economies to prove the different effects of tax-cutting v no tax cutting & the respective effects on subsequent "revenues".

Same thing to prove that eliminating/reducing deficits by NOT cutting taxes v cutting then borrowing (or bonding as Bane describes, above) to cover the bills.

Are you aware that many personal financial advisors tell clients in debt to spend cash only & not use credit?

Gee, last time I checked people don't create and raise tax revenues. Talk about apples and oranges.

To prove the proposition, one would need identical side-by-side economies to prove the different effects of tax-cutting v no tax cutting & the respective effects on subsequent "revenues".

No you don't. The PROOF is that the taxes were LOWERED and revenues ROSE.

You should ask for a refund on your economic education.

BTW, don't go into business for yourself. You would raising prices constantly and you would never have a sale.

LeMano wrotwe, "No you don't. The PROOF is that the taxes were LOWERED and revenues ROSE.
It should be pointed out that increased revenue to the government from tax reduction was an unintended consequence; Reagan was attempting to shrink government by restricting income. As a trained economist, Reagan was disappointed by the ever increasing revenue flowing into the government coffers. He took full political advantage, but honestly didn’t want to encourage the continued government spending. He tried with his budgets to slow the growth but remember how Tip O’Neill declared the Reagan budget “dead on arrival”?
Ohio does have a valid point, the deficit should be reduced by servicing the debt, then withhold issuance of new bonds until the market catches up; at the current rate that would be about four years by my calculations, depending on the bond reduction and any additional spending for emergencies.

Ohio,
The Government does spend cash and not use credit; Washington, Madison, Lincoln, Wilson and FDR used credit in the form of script. Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton and Bush (43) use cash received from investors like a corporation. Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter floated the expenses until revenues caught up (remember Nixon’s “Phase II”?)

We did have a test case with three economies using variations of tax and spend, social engineering and unrestricted government consumption Keynesian economics: Great Britain, the US and Germany in the 1930’s.

"so...borrow or tax?"

How about CUT SPENDING!

"is it better to fund our deficits by borrowing monies or to not have cut the taxes in the first place?" Ohio O

Its better to cut spending first.

The next best thing is to cut tax rates to stimulate the economy to raise overall tax revenues.

"If cutting taxes raises revenue; why not cut taxes to zero and we'll have all the money we need?" Joe Biden

“The Laffer Curve itself does not say whether a tax cut will raise or lower revenues. Revenue responses to a tax rate change will depend upon the tax system in place, the time period being considered, the ease of movement into underground activities, the level of tax rates already in place, the prevalence of legal and accounting-driven tax loopholes, and the proclivities of the productive factors. If the existing tax rate is too high--in the "prohibitive range" then a tax-rate cut would result in increased tax revenues. The economic effect of the tax cut would outweigh the arithmetic effect of the tax cut.” Arthur Laffer

Bane, I would like you thoughts on the following commentary:
“…I'm going to choose N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, a proponent of tax cuts who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers in the Bush White House. Mankiw is a top-notch economist hired by Bush and Cheney to advise them. And last year he published a paper on how far tax cuts pay for themselves, reporting enthusiastically that this self-financing effect is "surprisingly large."
How large, exactly? Mankiw reckons that over the long run (the long run being generous to his argument), cuts on capital taxes generate enough extra growth to pay for half of the lost revenue.

Hello, Mr. President, that means that the other half of the lost revenue translates into bigger deficits. Mankiw also calculates that the comparable figure for cuts in taxes on wages is 17 percent. Yes, Mr. President, that means every $1 trillion in tax cuts is going to add $830 billion to the national debt….”

Bane, do you agree or disagree?

Barney,
See Laffer above.
I've read Mankiw's paper, you and Mallaby both ignore the statements regarding the elastisity of labor and substitution. "Not surprisingly, the results of this exercise depend on a number of key parameters. Because the values of some of these parameters are open to debate, reasonable people can disagree about the magnitude of the feedback effects.”

I’ll also refer you to John Maynard Keynes on the subject of increasing revenues by economic stimulation; "Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget."

LaMano - less ad hom & more on point please. after all, we're not koss(acks) repleat w gutter profanities, are we?

now then, I do run a small biz. it's a real estate LLC which specializes in property acquisition, renovation, & rental management. so I have both practical experience & large exposure to investment debt.

but govt debt is NOT investment debt. it is most nearly consumer debt. however, in financing this debt, the govt sells bonds thus reducing market liquidity.

so therein is another cost, that is what did the market loose by NOT having that cash available that is tied-up in bonds?

and the fiscally conservative do not like running these deficits.

oh well, my ARM's all went up anyway thanks to the FED (as did the rent). thank goodness we're taming inflation...just when I thought gas prices would slow the economy sufficiently. guess the FED folks all use bicycles.

have a great weekend & GO CAVS!

Barney, You should source your quotes, you give the impression that Mankiw said, "Hello, Mr. President, that means that the ..." when it was columnist Mallaby that wrote that.

New topic: HOUSE VOTES TO KEEP GAS PRICES HIGH!

http://news.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBB5DC0ENE.html

They've voted to continue the ban on drilling for oil and natural gas. They all outta hang.

It could also be said: HOUSE VOTES TO KEEP HUNDRED MILLION YEAR OLD TOXIC ATMOSPHERE SEQUESTERED, ASSURES GAS COMPANY PROFITS AND STRONG LOBBYIST BANKROLL FOR GENERATIONS TO COME.

Just a different perspective.

Tait Fletcher won the fight last night.

Iran's president has sexual fantasies involving himself, Adolf Hitler, Armor All, and a mule.

Dick Durbin shaves his legs and wears women's undergarments.

Hey, I like this open thread stuff!

Well, send me some cash, cause $3.00/gal is killing me and my 30mpg car I've got.

This little piece of GOOD news seems to have slipped under the radar:

Friday, May 19, 2006

Grand Jury Indicts 4 Accused Ecoterrorists for 1998 Vail Firebombing

"EUGENE, Ore. - The FBI knew her as the Country Girl and him as the Country Boy.
When they were arrested Dec. 7 in the most extensive snare of suspected eco-saboteurs in U.S. history, she was identified as Chelsea Gerlach, 28, the first person named as a suspect in the 1998 Vail fire bombings.

Gerlach and Meyerhoff were two of the six men and women arrested Dec. 7 in four states for the eco-terrorist attacks against such sites as power lines, meat- packing plants, research stations and tree farms.

The Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, classified by the FBI as the nation's leading domestic terrorist threats, claimed responsibility for the firebombing and arsons, most of which took place in Oregon and Washington as far back as 1998.

He was Stanislas Meyerhoff, also 28, who faces 17 counts of arson, conspiracy and destruction that could send him to prison for the rest of his life.

They appeared in U.S. District Court in Eugene together, just as they were photographed together in 1993 as high school peace activists.

"Our generation was born to save the Earth - if we wait until we're out of school it might be too late," then-sophomore Gerlach, a member of the Student Coalition Advocating Peace and Equality, wrote for the 1993 Eugenean yearbook.

Gerlach and Meyerhoff were two of the six men and women arrested Dec. 7 in four states for the eco-terrorist attacks against such sites as power lines, meat- packing plants, research stations and tree farms.

The Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, classified by the FBI as the nation's leading domestic terrorist threats, claimed responsibility for the firebombing and arsons, most of which took place in Oregon and Washington as far back as 1998."

Ahhhh! Child prodegies of our illustrious leftwing public school system, I'll bet their teachers are proud.

Note to the teenage moonbat: This too can be your fate.

Democrats universally comdemn acts of ecoterrorism. In fact, all political parties officially comdemn all attempts to influence social policy outside the political arena. Nobody in power ever hands over their weapons of control to terrorists, public trust and the rule of law being the two most powerful weapons of Democracy.

I don't care about any damn defecits; I just want to see liberalism eradicated in my time...

Isn't that a quote from "Mein Kampf"?

No, I think he said he wanted to see liberals eradicated in his lifetime, big difference.

Works for me, Bane...

"I want to see liberalism eradicated in my lifetime"

You that raised an interesting thought in my head'

What if,Just what if,by chance,for once, would happen, if Liberal, and Conservative agreed alike?

What would happen?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0519062ss1.html

Yet another example of our socialist public school system turning the yoots of America into terrorists.

Now we know where the pimpled faced lefties that occassionally hang out here get their hatred.

Reflections on a Stone

I'm working in Plymouth, Massachusetts today, and had a little free time to visit one of the icons of our nation, Plymouth Rock.

First time visitors often remark on how ragged and worn the rock appears in it's cage by the bay. There are granite columns and a roof over it's head, but it lies in a muck of sand, algae, candy wrappers, a soggy tourist brochure and corroded coins tossed in by the superstitious as a sacrifice to bring good fortune.

A crack runs from west to east through the top portion that was amateurishly filled with concrete and gravel somewhere back in the 1960's. The crack has since opened up and allows water and salt to resume grinding the stone into oblivion.

This rock, though there is some doubt as to whether it's THE rock pilgrims first used to step onto the continent, has been memorialized by Tocqueville and others as equating to the foundation upon which America was born, representing the dreams of those who did not seek freedom from religion, but rather freedom from the tyranny of government controlled and guided religious beliefs and behaviors.

Every time a faith-based initiative channels taxpayer money into a social program, a bit of this rock chips off and falls away. Every time the military forces a denominational prayer on an Orthodox Jew, this stone sinks a little further into the sand. Every time a preacher states that a vote for a certain candidate is a ticket to the everlasting fire, the crack in this stone widens and deepens.

They predict that without a concerted public interest and action, Plymnouth Rock will one day completely succumb to the forces that assault it every day, no matter how many coins are thrown at it.

Just like our freedoms.

congressive

Wish more Americans felt this way. Seems the foundations of a great nation are crumbling under the weight of an inept and unjust administration.
So very sad.

Plymouth Rock IS symbolic of America.

Its erosion, and destruction seem to inevitable if left unprotected from the relentless waves of illegal immigrants coming to our shores.

Could someone tell me what a spoofer is? Is it one who blogs as someone they're not?