Yes, but Mark, aren't we saddling our children and grandchildren with an enourmous bill by borrowing money from China to pay for these tax cuts for the rich? And what about this illegal war? Who's gonna pay for that while Bush, Cheney, and Halliburton get rich? And Katrina, and the bridges, and Mark Foley--who's gonna pay? Our children and grandchildren. And they'll have to learn Chinese!

///sarcasm off///

There, troll pukes--now you don't have to post. Back to your drugs...

Mark, you pay taxes in order to fund spending. Unless you plan on leaving the US in the next 5 years, current tax rates aren't really important in the long run, spending is what drives what everyone pays. And when the federal government buys like 20% of the economy, this crowds out everyone else, making us poorer even without tax a tax raise(a hidden tax).

If you want lower and lower taxes you need lower and lower spending.

Without the massive increase in non-defense spending, almost a trillion a year(this doesn't include anything new for terrorism), we could have cut taxes even more(possible accelerating the supply side gains), or had a surplus instead had a deficit.

Take care of spending and taxes take care of themselves.

Bush is a complete failure as a fiscal conservative. We've had the biggest spending increase since LBJ's great soceity(even if you subtract everything because of terrorism).

Also, looking at deficit/GDP is a stupid number. It fluctuates alot based off how we finiance the debt, and during bad economic times tax receipts fall and benifits rise, again making large fluctuations. It's only really useful to mislead people to think your doing something about the debt.

robert,

I won't reply to your repeated bilge because I'm an economic illiterate. I will, however, wait until DL chimes in and spanks your uninformed arse. Actually, I look forward to it--get 'im, DL!!!

If you want lower and lower taxes you need lower and lower spending. - robert

As if the two are mutually inclusive. robert, you poor indoctrinated liberal. The Federal government makes more money through when taxes are low allowing people and business's to keep more of their money to spend or re-invest. When those things are accomplished the government realizes the taxes on those expenditures or investments, albeit at a lower rate, again allowing the cycle to repeat itself.

Higher taxes lower the ability of the individual to spend and hinders the ability of the business to re-invest.

Economics 101

It's only really useful to mislead people to think your doing something about the debt. - robert

A government is a perpetuating entity, it never dies. Therefore the debt of that entity never needs to eliminated, simply managed. Also, I think you're confusing debt vs deficit. The deficit is the annual spending vs annual receipts, which is far smaller negative ratio this year than expected, due to the unexpected high amount of tax receipts collected from the above mentioned cycle I explained.

The debt is the cummulative of the annual deficits. Again, being the government is a perpetuating entity, debts simply need to be managed.

Hey Pia, we can always ask the Clintons to ask the Chinese to drop our debt. The Chinese owe them, after all, for the government secrets Clinton gave them for their illegal campaign contributions.

Mark, the point of the Libtards is not to increase revenues and tax receipts, but to tax the wealthy even if that shrinks revenues. That will help the poor in Libthink, even if the poor pay no taxes. And yea, their own polls indicate libtards are smarter. The above speaks for itself with respect to even basic intelligence.

Do you have the data for individual revenue types? I still think that real revenue from individual income (the type that the tax cuts were supposed to produce) is still below 2000 levels (I don't have the link off-hand) and the increase in total revenues can be explained by increased FICA revenues, which have been steadily increasing since 1996. Here's a good article on tax revenues though.

There are many areas that make up the economy, like wages, trade, deficit, among others. A country could have a balanced budget and still have poor economic performance.

I believe the Fed made a huge mistake by lowering the interest rate. That helped the market, but did not help the average person or those in foreclosure, which is in record numbers.

While other areas of the economy remain strong, my concern is the collapsing US Dollar. It is hit an all time low against the Euro, 30 year low against the Canadian Dollar, and 24 year low against the Pound Sterling. Meanwhile, if countries have anxiety about having greenbacks then they will start selling them for a stronger currency, which will lead to many problems for the US.

My concern might be unfounded and the US did face a similar situation over 30 years ago. However, I don't think the government has the power to boost the greenback as it once it.

robert,

Mark, you pay taxes in order to fund spending.

How does taking more of my money in taxes help me and other Americans increase our spending to help the economy?

...current tax rates aren't really important in the long run, spending is what drives what everyone pays.

Really, so if the government takes 75% of your income to spend as they (Democrats in Congress) choose, you'd be happy and better off than you are now?

... the federal government buys like 20% of the economy, this crowds out everyone else, making us poorer even without tax a tax raise(a hidden tax).

The government "buys like 20% of the economy"? What does that mean?

The government "crowds out everyone else, making us poorer even without 'tax a tax raise'"? What does that mean?

If you want lower and lower taxes you need lower and lower spending. ...Take care of spending and taxes take care of themselves.

Also, looking at deficit/GDP is a stupid number. It fluctuates alot based off how we finiance the debt, and during bad economic times tax receipts fall and benifits rise, again making large fluctuations. It's only really useful to mislead people to think your doing something about the debt.

Huh? ! ! !

Where did you get your degree in economics and logic?

Which is larger a 15% tax rate on a trillion dollar economy... or a lesser 10% tax rate on a two trillion dollar economy?

AAR

Which is larger a 15% tax rate on a trillion dollar economy... or a lesser 10% tax rate on a two trillion dollar economy?

That should be a question for you to answer. You conservatives just bitch and complain about all the things you don't have (better school that allow us to pick the curriculum, make sure we have money to pay for Bush's war, lets build that fence around America) and you want the money there, but only for your pet projects.

Instead of Bush promising to veto the CHIP bill, why not make sure we have money to fund the bill.

Rock wrote, "You conservatives just bitch and complain about all the things you don't have"

WOW, that's a new. And Dims never bitch about things they don't have.

LOL.

rockville,

Your members of Congress have loaded up the CHIP bill with so much pork, that it wouldn't make sense to sign it.

You have also missed the lessen from economics 101. Federal revenue is healthier in a growing economy, when business's are reinvesting and growing the employment ranks and consumers are spending. The current tax receipts are exceeding all expectations and are enough to lower the expected deficit, pay for the war and continue entitlement spending.

For some unknown reason, liberals tend to think that the only way the fed can generate receipts is through higher taxation on the rich, which ultimately hurts the economy and payrolls, which are not felt by the politicians. They get their money and more power through more dependence. And therein the lies the rub.

The next Republican President better have some good ideas because this is what is really hppening:

In the U.S. interest rate are going lower, Gold is going higher, Oil is going higher, inflation is going higher, the dollar is going lower. What is wrong with this? Everything! At some point the FED is going to have to raise rates bigtime. We are in a very, very, precarious situation at the moment. I think Gold will tripple to over $2,000 an ounce when the market finally wakes up and sees the real inflation. Last I checked a lower dollar = higher import prices. There is no inflation deflator here. With commodities on fire you can forget about that. Bernanke should have never lowered rates last week. However, the Fed might be doing something that few have talked about. Maybe the Fed has abandoned the dollar to crush the trade deficit. Good luck, it will take 20 years to correct our 6% of GDP trade deficit and move it back to under 1% of GDP, unless you want to seriously disrupt the global economy. We are in for tough times people. Very tough! The FED will not be able to save housing with lower rates. We are in for a 10 year decline in home prices. It is called a cycle!

"A government is a perpetuating entity, it never dies. Therefore the debt of that entity never needs to eliminated, simply managed. Also, I think you're confusing debt vs deficit. The deficit is the annual spending vs annual receipts, which is far smaller negative ratio this year than expected, due to the unexpected high amount of tax receipts collected from the above mentioned cycle I explained.

The debt is the cummulative of the annual deficits. Again, being the government is a perpetuating entity, debts simply need to be managed" - neocon

Umm, debt/GDP is up since Bush's term, that's the important number. Like I said a large amount of the deficit comes from how we finiance the debt which the president has little control over. And a large debt does matter, it creates a massive wealth redistribution racket, how is that good?

AAR, try this experiment, get a credit card and increase your consumption 40% and see what happens over the long term.

And the government buys 20% of the land, labor and capitol. This takes it away from everyone else. The more stuff the government buys, the less is available for everyone else.

I would much rather see the pork in the CHIP bill then to see it passed directly to Haliburton and Blackwater. If money is to be spent at least make sure that some good may come out of the process. Unlike spending on Bush's war.

I would much rather see the pork in the CHIP bill then to see it passed directly to Haliburton and Blackwater.

The pork in the CHIP bill has nothing to do with the CHIP program and everything to do with Congresscritters bring home unwarranted tax money to their districts to curry favor.

And a large debt does matter, it creates a massive wealth redistribution racket, how is that good?

Explain how large debt creates "massive wealth redistribution"?

Careful with your answer, I have a feeling I know what it will be.

the basic tenet of supply-side economics is keeping more of each extra dollar earned

This theory still misses the fact that in 1982 Reagan raised taxes on the unemployed. Yes, that's right, the unemployed, the brokest of the broke. He raised taxes on unemployment insurance payments to the very people downsized by his dismantling of job protections and union busting.

The missing element seems to be "keeping more of each extra dollar earned" by the top 10%, everyone else is on their own.

Bush IS carrying on this tradition. But considering Reagan's on-camera, seemingly heartfelt apology for trading arms for hostages, Bush in no way embraces Reagan's sense of accountability.

Was that sufficiently devoid of nuance?

Mark - just like you thought you were going to clobber the Democrats in 2006? You are going to lose the presidency and more seats in congress. I will put 500 on it? Want to match it? Or are you the scared little boy we know you are

rockville,

For you mathematically challenged Libs, 10% of two trillion dollars is more than 15% of one trillion dollars.

Reduce the tax rates, grow the economy, and the net tax revenue increases!

Increase the tax rates, pour the money into ineffective and wasteful government programs, and the net tax revenues decrease!

Unless Democrats have suddenly got some common sense and significantly changed the SCHIP legislation since I last read the details, President Bush absolutely should veto the nutty Democrat's SCHIP bill and at the same time, he and every Conservative and Republican should make sure the American voters know that DEMOCRATS removed the requirement to check citizenship -- making American TAXPAYERS pay the bill FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS! The American voters should know that DEMOCRATS have defined "children" to include ADULTS -- people under 26 YEARS OLD! The American voters should know that the "poor people" DEMOCRATS want taxpayers to carry includes families of four making more than $80,000 PER YEAR!

The American voters should know that 25 year old illegal alien farm workers would be covered by taxpayers as "poor children"... a family of four with a couple of 25 year old parents (and two "children") making $82,000 per year would be covered by other taxpayers as a family of children... 25 year old college students would be covered as "children"!

President Bush ABSOLUTELY should veto your lousy and misleading Democrat SCHIP bill which is not limited to "poor American children"... and the American people MUST be repeatedly TOLD and understand WHY!!!

Why don't YOU and all your nutty DEMOCRAT friends hand over your entire pay checks to people who should not be covered or who should be paying for their own healthcare!

And STOP your DEMOCRAT supported bankrupting LAWSUITS that are driving up the cost of already unaffordable healthcare -- and everything else in America!

AAR

congressive,

Brokest of the broke? Oh my!

Well if they are THAT bad off, I'm sure they qualified for other government welfare, subsidies, entitlements, food stamps, and hand-outs!

The fact that the unemployment benefits were taxed at the time they were paid out does not mean that the people did not ultimately get some or all of those taxes back. Depending on how much those "brokest of the broke" received that tax year, they may have received most or all of those taxes back (possibly even tax credits) when they filed their tax return! Now, if the Democrats would reduce the tax rates, the "brokest of the broke" would pay less in taxes and get more back when they file their tax returns!

Unemployed or not, though, that WAS income (to carry them over until their next job), right?

So you agree that anyone who is "unemployed" should not have their "income" taxed, right?

That would include ALL "unemployed" persons living off their retirement and annuity income, even millionaires and billionaires, right?

That would include ALL "unemployed" persons living off the income from their stocks, bonds, and other investments, even millionaires and billionaires, right?

That should increase the standard of living of millions and reduce the total government tax revenues! ! !

AAR

That would include ALL "unemployed" persons living off the income from their stocks, bonds, and other investments, even millionaires and billionaires, right? That should increase the standard of living of millions and reduce the total government tax revenues! ! ! - AAR

Excellent rebuttal AAR. congressive just doesn't think those things through. DOH!

Just a few factoids from the Reagan economy:

- Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

- Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

- Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

robert,

RE: "If you want lower and lower taxes you need lower and lower spending."

RE: "Take care of spending and taxes take care of themselves."

RE: "...get a credit card and increase your consumption 40% and see what happens over the long term."

I'm not sure where you are headed, do you know?

What happens if I get a credit card and increase my consumption 40%?

Nothing! I got an new job and got a big pay raise; although, I did gain some weight! I didn't need the credit card, so I cut it up and sent it back to the company. Their interest rates were way too high!

Without me having to try and figure out what you are talking about when you say "the government buys 20% of the land, labor and capitol", what specifically are you talking about and including?

AAR

neocon,

Thanks!

I think you would have still been correct if you had shortened the sentence to: "congressive just doesn't think"!

But... that applies to all Liberals!

I've got some errands to run, so have fun!

AAR

The best thing about these issues is that facts, common sense, logic, justice, etc, etc, etc are all on our side

Which is why you always seem to be wrong, huh? Funny how that works.

Speaking of being wrong, you are, naturally, wrong in pretty much all your assertions about the repeatedly-debunked "success" of supply-side economics. Here's a companion piece to Rana's link. It's called "Tax Cuts: Myths and Realities," and as you'll come to see (and then go out of your way to deny), most of what you believe about tax cuts falls under the "myth" category.

Too bad. The budget numbers are the budget numbers.

Indeed. And they prove supply-side economics to be, at best, a modest failure.

But try not to let the facts intrude on your little cult, OK?

"Explain how large debt creates "massive wealth redistribution"?" - neocon

Who pays to finance the debt, only the debt holders? Explain how anything government does, doesn't cause wealth redistribution.

"Nothing! I got an new job and got a big pay raise; although, I did gain some weight! I didn't need the credit card, so I cut it up and sent it back to the company. Their interest rates were way too high!" - AAR

Well the US has been using the credit card for over 60 years now and has never stopped.

What I'm saying is that the fundamental problem is spending, not taxes. If Bush hadn't raised non-defense spending like 40% we could have had even more tax cuts, or been paying off our debt. You don't need to be an economics major to realize that if the government spends more money, it will eventually have to get that money from somewhere(taxation). Bush may be pragmatically conservative on taxes, but hes idealogically big government, evidenced by his spending. Tax cuts are always great but they're only half the equation.

Nice strawman, AAR. If you like the color red, and the commies are widely known as "Reds" then you must be a commie, right.

No. You are wrong. You didn't read the report. Reagan lowered the threshold for taxing, not just withholding taxes, but for taxable income on the unemployed from $20K a year to $12K a year, no refunds on that. Ronnie RAISED taxes. I know you just can't wrap your head around those three words, but too bad. Ronnie RAISED taxes on the poor.

And NO, it isn't taxable income. It's unemployment INSURANCE. If your medical INSURANCE pays a hundred thousand dollars for an operation, do you pay taxes on that insurance claim? No. But they're giving you the cash to pay your doctor, just like unemployment pays you cash to give your grocer, landlord, bank, and every other expense you incur whether you're employed or not.

Your hero Ronnie taxed the poor, blundered the Beirut fiasco, and traded arms for hostages with Iran. Yes, Iran. Even he admitted it.

Why can't you?

congressive,

Commies, Reds, Socialists, Liberals -- all from the same mold!

But it's late and I need some sleep.

AAR

God bless you President Bush for your leadership after 9/11 and for keeping this country safe from attack for over 6 years.

Watch this video on the morning. It's really really short.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow

It's just Ronnie describing "truthiness" in his own words, long before Colbert. It won't hurt. Maybe.

congressive,

RE: "And NO, it isn't taxable income. It's unemployment INSURANCE."

I have received unemployment insurance payments one time in my life... and those benefits were taxed and reported as income on my tax return.

As for "brokest of the broke"... my taxable income that year (including those unemployment benefits) exceeded what I would have made if I had not been "unemployed" for a period of time!

Quotes from several websites...

"Unemployment insurance compensation is considered taxable income so one must report any state or federal unemployment insurance benefits they received during the tax year they are filing for."

"Any unemployment compensation benefits that you receive in 2006 from the state or federal government are taxable income and must be reported on your tax return. You'll receive a Form 1099-G. The unemployment compensation benefits are reportable on Line 3 of Form 1040EZ, Line 13 of Form 1040A, or Line 19 of Form 1040."

"Unemployment compensation benefits received from a union or private fund to which you contribute are taxable on your tax return only to the extent that your unemployment compensation benefits exceed your contributions to the union or private fund. Report this income on Line 19 of Form 1040."

"Unemployment compensation is also taxable. State unemployment insurance benefits, up to 26 weeks, and extended benefits, up to an additional 13 weeks, are taxable. When you apply for unemployment you will normally be asked if you want to have income tax withheld. You can choose to have 10% withheld for federal income taxes by completing Form W-4V, Voluntary Withholding Request. You should receive Form 1099-G prior to January 31st of the following year, showing your total unemployment compensation and the amount of federal income tax that was withheld."

Let me know if you find otherwise.

AAR

To all the liberal posters who believe that we have to have higher tax rates to get more money I have a question:

Why did JFK move to lower the capital gains tax? It was to increase the tax revenue from that tax - you fools.

Even one of your true heros knew more than the current crop of libs seems to understand today. God help us if you idiots gain more power.

Dang, late to the party and up to my bifocals in real financial stuff this week.

Of course unemployment compensation is taxable; it’s 100% paid by the employer, just like any other employer paid income. Additionally, if you receive disability insurance income it’s … income.

To clear up another misconception; the falling dollar actually precludes a recession; the last time we have the USD at .80 Euro (the highest exchange rate) was in the Fall of 2000; recession. Lower USD; better trade on US goods.

The Reagan tax plan did lower the threshold, that part is true, simply stated; while the “poverty rate” is indexed to inflation the threshold was not, the result was that an ever increasing number of taxpayers were being stung by federal tax liabilities, especially larger families. Benefiting the poor, middle-class and families.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick of this "tax breaks for the rich crap these liberals toss around. If they didn't receive any tax relief from Reagan or Bush then they're on the public dole and have no right to dictate to real wage earners about tax policy.

congressive also fails to mention that Reagan also raised the zero-bracket amount (thus exempting the poor from all Federal Income Taxes), raised personal exemptions and expanded the earned income tax credit. Reagan also repealed the two-earner deduction; the marriage penalty; And the child care “credit” was changed to a deduction. Btw, congressive, the last time I collected unemployment I was in the 30% tax bracket. Hardly the poorest of the poor.

robert,

Cut spending, raise taxes, or grow the economy; you choose. All three will have the same effect on the deficit; two will have a detrimental effect on the economy; guess which ones.

"Cut spending, raise taxes, or grow the economy; you choose. All three will have the same effect on the deficit; two will have a detrimental effect on the economy; guess which ones." - Dasein Libsbane

Yea but no one said you only have to pick one, and we where actually raising spending, and by alot. We're definitely growing the government faster than the economy, the budget/GDP has risen under Bush. Continued tax cuts will hit a roadblock unless you also deal with spending. Spending is the fundamental issue. I was under the impression that the conservative position wasn't for smarter federal government anyways, but for dismantling as much of it as quickly as possible(or maybe I'm in the wrong party).

Also saying that cutting government spending will have a detrimental effect on the economy is misleading. The fundamental thing an economy provides is a means to satisfy personal wants/desires. Sure you can increase aggregate demand by forcefully appropriating peoples money under the threat of incarceration and spending it, or by selling bonds(backed by ponzi scheme) and turning peoples savings-investment into current government consumption. But the values of goods and services are objective not subjective(ordinal not cardinal), when someone takes your money and spends it on you, you cannot take the benifit at the dollar value. A large portion of recent economic growth can be attributed to increase in government growth, but this is misleading, these dollars can't be taken at face value, but they are in econometric calculations.

And like I said earlier, federal spending can be almost as detrimental as taxation(but it is less distortionary than taxation), if the government buys more land, labor and capital there's less left over for legitimate buisness, and remember, government spent dollars don't count nearly as much for economic benifit.

“A large portion of recent economic growth can be attributed to increase in government growth, but this is misleading, these dollars can't be taken at face value, but they are in econometric calculations. ”

Dang, what did you do, cut and past the first five pages of your Econ 101 concordance? Sort of a Bloom’s Taxonomy for Econ teachers? “ ordinal not cardinal” You just gotta respect anyone who can work those words into a conversation, good on ya’.

First, you know I’m no Keynesian, at face value one could argue that the government spending has stimulated growth rather than actually escalating the rate of growth. The spending is actually multi-faceted beyond the dollars in and dollars out; the investments in infrastructure are essential to foreign investment in our Ponzie Scheme, (it tickles me to read that, I’ll explain later.) And the re-investment in the Federal Reserve is proving the very reason we have a Federal Reserve. But to infrastructure, It’s the very nature of self investment that draws others into the game; the stability is self sustaining provided the investment is equally aggressive.

I fully agree that the spending was done in an amateurish manner; infrastructure came last in the priorities; buying votes with all manner of give-away has been the code of conduct in politically motivated budgeteering. But let’s look at the hand we’ve been dealt; the Debt is still a manageable part of GDP, the growth in the economy has outpaced inflation and spending, and the Service on the Debt is lower now than at any time during the supposed “Balanced Budget ” years.

Liberals decry the rise in private investment after the 2003 as some demonic conspiracy of the fat-cats to cheat the government out of their fair share of the wealth created by the tax cuts; wealth only in the hands of the wealthy (See: Tractatus’ predictable diatribe), but, by their own philosophy and the “evidence” there is no creation of wealth; only re-distribution. The link provided bemoans the “tax-cuts” by claiming that if the economy grew at the rate it did, and the “tax-cuts” hadn’t been enacted, the revenue to the government would have been greater. WOW! Hard to imagine that if we had more revenue and we added more revenue to it we’d have more revenue! Problem is, without the investment incentive the economy would have slowed and stalled for many-many years, revenues would be much lower than today. This was Reagan’s Plan; slow the revenue stream and force Congress to stop spending what they didn’t have; problem is, the economy grew and receipts increased; damn, don’t ya just hate when that happens?

Infrastructure investment works the same way; if only in the appearance of re-investment potential partners in the enterprise are drawn to the stability of the economy that believes in itself.

The Ponzie Scheme you refer to is only such if all of the participants expect to opt when they get paid off at the end of the investment; that hasn’t happened, won’t happen and frankly if it ever did happen, the economy would be the least of our worries. (See: Red Dawn) Honestly, you don’t really believe that the Debt will be “paid off” or that we’re paying for World War II right now? True we’re paying for Johnson’s “Great Society” but not in the way Tiedeman (and most liberals) believe.

“ when someone takes your money and spends it on you, you cannot take the benefit at the dollar value.”

(I’ll fix your spelling as I go). I’ll remind my wife of this concept; she came home on Sunday to announce that she “saved $10.00 by buying two pair of shoes.” I told her to get back to the store and buy more; we can use the money!

“ if the government buys more land, labor and capital there's less left over for legitimate business,” The economy nor labor nor capital is finite; this isn’t zero sum gain, the ever expanding economy doesn’t have to contract (See: Andrew Carnegie)

Right now I’ve got some pretty heavy financial tables to prepare; I may not be able to continue this for a while, or I may just complete my thoughts later. Ya’ never know.

Thanks for the conversation.

"Myth 8: Even if high-income taxpayers have received the largest gains from the tax cuts, taxpayers across the income spectrum have benefited.

Taking into account the fact that their costs eventually must be paid for, most American families likely will lose from the tax cuts over the long run."

That is singularly the most absurd statement on the entire of Tractatus’ predictable diatribe. Absolutly hysterical! Do these people get paid to do this?

"And NO, it isn't taxable income. It's unemployment INSURANCE. If your medical INSURANCE pays a hundred thousand dollars for an operation, do you pay taxes on that insurance claim? No."
Congressive

Bwwwahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

How old are you? Still living in your mom's basement? Don't have a job yet? Love to play Dundgeons and Dragons?

Folks, you can't blame this poor fool for his lack of real world knowledge...he's the result of a liberals education (as opposed to a liberal education).

Don't you love it when liberals try to explain the real world?

Dasein Libsbane,

Late to the party? Not at all. I was getting tired of dealing with the nuts!

RE: "I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick of this 'tax breaks for the rich' crap these liberals toss around."

Me too. The problem is, it's another "believable lie" that "sounds right" to the illiterate masses! I wish someone would find a quick and simple way to educate the Liberals' zombie parrots to the facts!

Do these people get paid to do this? Soros and MoveOn.Org must spend their money somewhere. It doesn't matter if their posts are logical, just that they "sound good and believable" to the average illiterate. Other than that, I think their job is mostly to clutter, cloud, confuse, and obfuscate the sites making it less likely that the readers can find and understand the Conservative message! I wish someone would pay me!

AAR

"The Ponzie Scheme you refer to is only such if all of the participants expect to opt when they get paid off at the end of the investment; that hasn’t happened, won’t happen and frankly if it ever did happen, the economy would be the least of our worries. (See: Red Dawn) Honestly, you don’t really believe that the Debt will be “paid off” or that we’re paying for World War II right now? True we’re paying for Johnson’s “Great Society” but not in the way Tiedeman (and most liberals) believe." - Dasein Libsbane

All of the governments long term trust funds contain receipts for debt to other government departments(like 5 trillion). In a collective sense, I guess this is more like living paycheck to paycheck(and using the credit card alot) than a ponzi scheme, but in an individual sense, someones gonna get screwed. Then again, getting screwed by the government is nothing new.

I just think it's funny that the people said, "we're too stupid to save and we need pensions", so the government gave made it a criminal offence not to put some of your money into your pension(SS). Then we elected people that spent all the pension money and replaced it with IOUs. I guess that's one of the problems with democracy.

"The economy nor labor nor capital is finite; this isn’t zero sum gain, the ever expanding economy doesn’t have to contract" - Dasein Libsbane

Yea, but it only expands so fast, and Bush has done a good job of expanding government even faster. Hence rising budget/GDP.

AAR, if you lower the rate on declared income, you pay a lower percentage of declared income, DUH. If you get a tax break, make more money and pay even more taxes, it's still a tax break, you where the one that made more money, the government didn't give it to you, it just happens to be good for everyone. Guess what, any amount of taxes paid by anyone is bad, because it's stealing. That's all the economics you need to know. BTW, my previous point was that government spending is a promise to steal(tax), Bush promised to steal more when he raised non-defense spending 40%, you can say he cut taxes, but he could have cut them even more. There's no free spending.

AAR,
Really-reallybusy this week, hope you check back. Thanks, btw for the discussion on the other thread; trust me, I understand your frustration and I believe the answer comes from you and me ~ vis-à-vis the family.

Unfortunately simple economics sometimes misses the masses and we have no one to blame but our schools and Ross Perot; Perot gave us simple(minded) charts and graphs that tried to explain a complex dynamic situation in terms of a household checkbook. Even after completing a study of Economics in collage I thought of governmental spending in that way. Then I went to work for a government body that engages in Fund Accounting and slowly began to realize the Madison Avenue Mentality that we were being sold. I think you’re old enough to remember that reference; if not back in the 60’s advertising moved away from the industrial psychology realm and into slick packaging of even bad ideas as realistic options; Madison Avenue Advertising firms could sell us dog-$hit in plastic bags and convince us that we dare not live without it.

Getting back to econ; I was working for this “Institution” for about six months, and fighting the illogic of the system (mentally) when I became “Institutionalized.” At that point it all made sense; income and expense are fluid, “budget” is a guideline, more of a “suggestion” really, money could be “segregated,” depreciation is a bank account, you can have a “rollover” of a half million dollars and prove that you didn’t make profit.

That’s when I saw the Debt as a perpetual checkbook; “people” deposit money, make a return on investment, and when it’s matured they re-invest the proceeds, if one person or group opts out, another buys in. The Debt is constantly in flux, constantly paying out and paying in. The Debt makes money from investment, and loses money from dividends. The Debt is shared and mutually exclusive. Without checking, I believe 40% of the Debt is intergovernmental; the Department of the Treasury owes the Department of Commerce; the State of California, the University of California, and the Irvine Campus. Irvine owes the State of California which owes the Department of the Treasury; Commerce owes the Department of Defense and Defense owes DHS. Six million goes to Washington, eight million comes out. Hamilton would have been so proud!

I also began to understand the idea of growing economy as the most realistic way to control the Debt; those with minimal understanding, or students of Econ rail at the Debt reaching $9.0T, but fail to recognize the economy of the US and the World is not the same as it was when the Debt was $3.0T or $2.0B. The pie can get bigger and there is no limit to the size it can be (See: Carnegie). Full employment is only the beginning, a “poverty” class that has a better standard of living than 80% of the rest of the world, investors beating a path to our door to be part of this machine, and the other economies catching up or surpassing ours. A rising tide does indeed raise all boats.

I'm not afraid of compatition from China; I welcome it. Japan has run our Auto business out of town, and we've replaced it, augmented it, and increased our share of the market in a creative way. The motto of the Round Table was Adopt-Adapt-Improve.

I can’t put all that into bite-sized bumper-sticker talking points like “spending our children’s inheritance.” All I can say is “This is morning in America” and “Our best days are still ahead of us.”

Dasein Libsbane,

I read your last post.

You have some topics we could discuss, but this thread is headed for the archives soon, and I'm sure we will touch on them in future threads.

AAR