• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Attention: Deficit!

Re: Re: Re: Attention: Deficit!

Suddenly said:


We elected a Democrat. :p

(too easy, had to do it)
Click to expand...

And a Republican Congress, which is where the purse strings are. :)
 
Re: Re: Attention: Deficit!

Luke T. said:


Hard to believe that back in the 80s, the left was screaming about Reagan's deficits and how our grandchildren would be working off the debt 100 years from now. But like you said, we started this decade with a surplus.

Now how did that happen?
Click to expand...
Seriously? Because we had a surplus budget AND still had the debt.
 
Re: Re: Re: Attention: Deficit!

Snide said:

Seriously? Because we had a surplus budget AND still had the debt.
Click to expand...

And a booming economy instead of the deep depression predicted.

Message to Dems: You can't tax yourself into prosperity. Never been done.
 
Tricky said:

You're welcome! Do I have your vote then?

But to answer your question, let's say "rich" is the top 1% of total wealth. The tax cuts benefitted this group more than any other. You might say, "Well of course. They pay more taxes", which is often (but not always) true. They also get the most benefit out of the infrastructure that makes them able to amass such wealth. They should pay more and should pay a higher percentage. I'd guess that if they had a choice of paying higher taxes or having a lot less wealth, they'd pick the former.
Click to expand...

I thought my question was direct and straight to the point, I guess I was wrong because once again you did not answer any of it. As such, allow me to elaborate on it.

1) How much did the tax cut actually cut?
As in how much money in dollars was expected not to be collected from people.

2) Over what period of time does this tax cut take place?
I understand it wasn't just one giant cut but rather a series of cuts over a period of some years, how long exactly I do not know, hence my question.

2) Who are the rich; at what point do the people become rich?
How much does someone need to make to be considered rich or the better yet, who are the recipients of the tax cut, the percentage of the population and their minimum income.
 
WildCat said:
*snip*
Please show examples of any gov't reduction in spending during the Clinton years. I suspect you're one of those who call a reduction in spending increases a reduction in spending. How much do you think the gov't should grow every year? Won't this demand an ever-increasing amount of taxes to be collected? When will it ever be enough? *snip*
Click to expand...

Well in Clinton's defense, he did enact welfare reform, which resulted in reduction in spending during government. The critics were yelling that the streets would be swimming in poor, yet it did not happen. I for one am shocked!
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Attention: Deficit!

Let's review this whole exchange:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Luke T.


Hard to believe that back in the 80s, the left was screaming about Reagan's deficits and how our grandchildren would be working off the debt 100 years from now. But like you said, we started this decade with a surplus.

Now how did that happen?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Snide

Seriously? Because we had a surplus budget AND still had the debt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke T. said:


And a booming economy instead of the deep depression predicted.

Message to Dems: You can't tax yourself into prosperity. Never been done.
Click to expand...

Now let's take a close look at part of the last bit:

And a booming economy instead of the deep depression predicted.
Click to expand...

It's arguable as to whether this accurately represents the position taken by "the left" in the 80s. That point notwithstanding, such a prediction was (would have been) based on a continuance of the 80s deficits. Something along the lines of, "Balance the budget, or else there will be a deep depression."

Imagine a personal financial counselor recommending to a client that they'd better get a grip on their finances. "Start paying off those credit cards, and spend less than you make, or you're going to go bankrupt!"

The client starts paying off the credit cards and spends less than he makes over the next ten years.

Ten years later, the client says, "Hah! You're prediction was wrong! I didn't go bankrupt! Funny! You were screaming at the debt I ran up, but now I have a surplus! Now how did that happen?"

If you can see the abomination of logic on the part of the client in this hypo, then perhaps you see it in your responses above.

I'll spare you're very last sentence close scrutiny. You're entitled, it's too much of a blanket statement to answer "true" or "false" to, and it's beside the point I'm making here anyway.
 
Grammatron said:
I thought my question was direct and straight to the point, I guess I was wrong because once again you did not answer any of it. As such, allow me to elaborate on it.

1) How much did the tax cut actually cut?
As in how much money in dollars was expected not to be collected from people.
Click to expand...

There were a series of tax cuts. Bush's original tax cut proposal was sold on the grounds that a surplus meant the government was taking too much of your money. Throughout debates, and you can check the record, he maintained that we could keep a surplus (a smaller surplus while cutting taxes).

The expectations of the tax cut vary because they depend directly on assumptions about the economy.

Later Bush said he cautioned in an earlier speech that we could be plunged into red if there was a "recession, war, or national emergency," shortly adding that he "hit the trifecta." Spinsanity has searched and found no record of this warning. It's probably a lie.

2) Over what period of time does this tax cut take place?
I understand it wasn't just one giant cut but rather a series of cuts over a period of some years, how long exactly I do not know, hence my question.
Click to expand...

The capital gains tax was cut, I believe. The estate tax ("death tax") has been suspended and different income tax reductions will be phased in over the next ten years (although Bush wants to make these last two permanent).

Is the estate tax directed at the rich? Well, it only affects 2% of people. Republican lies convinced many that "family farms" would be stolen (they could not cite a single incident). Democrats proposed legislation that would exempt the first 100 million dollars of an estate from taxation (even getting moderate Republicans on board, like Specter and maybe McCain). It was rejected.

Bill Gates' father was especially vocal in opposing the estate tax and I'm sure there are op-eds co-written by him readily available on the Internet.

2) Who are the rich; at what point do the people become rich?
How much does someone need to make to be considered rich or the better yet, who are the recipients of the tax cut, the percentage of the population and their minimum income. [/B]
Click to expand...

?

(another post)
Well in Clinton's defense, he did enact welfare reform, which resulted in reduction in spending during government. The critics were yelling that the streets would be swimming in poor, yet it did not happen. I for one am shocked!
Click to expand...

How much did it reduce spending?
 
Cain said:

*snip*

How much did it reduce spending?
Click to expand...

If I was to answer your question like you did mine it would be a rant about how some people abuse welfare system, how most are able workers and do not even look for jobs. I would also cite someone about how people would suffer on an epic scale. And of course, it wouldn't answer your question. So I will wait until you answer mine before I answer yours.

I will repeat my question and bold the most important point that I want answered.

1) How much did the tax cut actually cut?
As in how much money in dollars was expected not to be collected from people.

2) Over what period of time does this tax cut take place?
I understand it wasn't just one giant cut but rather a series of cuts over a period of some years, how long exactly I do not know, hence my question.

2) Who are the rich; at what point do the people become rich?
How much does someone need to make to be considered rich or the better yet, who are the recipients of the tax cut, the percentage of the population and their minimum income.
 
Seems like some republicans don't like deficits either:

Bush just signed the Medicare measure into law last month. While it was moving through Congress, Bush, White House officials and congressional Republican leaders had assured doubting conservatives that the bill's costs would stay within the $400 billion estimate.

Some conservatives voted against the legislation anyway, and many of them are already angry that Bush has presided over excessive increases in spending and budget deficits.
...
Bush's new budget will also estimate this year's budget deficit at about $520 billion, the congressional sources said. That would easily surpass the $375 billion shortfall of last year, the highest deficit ever in dollar terms.
...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040129/D80CL8D84.html
 
headache.jpg


*sigh* You're so unbelievably dense.



Expectations vary because the financial outlook changes. Shortly before Clinton left we expected over a 5 trillion dollar surplus, but that was based on optimistic expectations. Bush's tax cut, the first one at least, was 1.6 trillion dollars. Then there was 674(?) billion dollar cut later.

Look, there's more than one tax cut. The initial one, I believe, is gradually phased in over ten years. The "cost" will change with the country's financial outlook.

2) Who are the rich; at what point do the people become rich?
How much does someone need to make to be considered rich or the better yet, who are the recipients of the tax cut, the percentage of the population and their minimum income.
Click to expand...

http://www.dinkytown.net/java/TaxMargin.html

The highest income tax rate for 2003 is 35% and applies to people with incomes over 312,000 dollars. (But if we're takling about "the rich", one must also consider estate and capital gains taxes)

According to the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institute (they collaborate on tax policy), less than one percent of people filing fall into the highest bracket.
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000547_TaxFacts_072803.pdf


My question again:
How much money have we saved in government spending since "welfare reform"?
 
Cain said:


*sigh* You're so unbelievably dense.



Expectations vary because the financial outlook changes. Shortly before Clinton left we expected over a 5 trillion dollar surplus, but that was based on optimistic expectations. Bush's tax cut, the first one at least, was 1.6 trillion dollars. Then there was 674(?) billion dollar cut later.

Look, there's more than one tax cut. The initial one, I believe, is gradually phased in over ten years. The "cost" will change with the country's financial outlook.



http://www.dinkytown.net/java/TaxMargin.html

The highest income tax rate for 2003 is 35% and applies to people with incomes over 312,000 dollars. (But if we're takling about "the rich", one must also consider estate and capital gains taxes)

According to the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institute (they collaborate on tax policy), less than one percent of people filing fall into the highest bracket.
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000547_TaxFacts_072803.pdf


My question again:
How much money have we saved in government spending since "welfare reform"?
Click to expand...

First, let me thank you for the insult as nothing shows a good argument like insulting someone for asking a question. You seem to be the best at that around here, kudos to you for that.

The government saved and estimated 65+ billion dollars over seven years. Essentially what the reform did is cap the spending at 35% increase over seven years instead of the original 50%.

If I read what you wrote correctly...let me just bold it over here: "Bush's tax cut, the first one at least, was 1.6 trillion dollars. Then there was 674(?) billion dollar cut later. " That's 2.2 trillion dollars in tax cuts, can I get a source on that?
 
Cain said:
...Later Bush said he cautioned in an earlier speech that we could be plunged into red if there was a "recession, war, or national emergency," shortly adding that he "hit the trifecta." Spinsanity has searched and found no record of this warning. It's probably a lie.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I can vividly recall reading that the "trifecta" line was uttered again and again in speech after speech (many of them cited in the passage). If I can recall where I saw this, I'll post the info.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Interesting. I can vividly recall reading that the "trifecta" line was uttered again and again in speech after speech (many of them cited in the passage). If I can recall where I saw this, I'll post the info.
Click to expand...
He took credit for saying it, when in fact it was Al Gore who did.

Edited to explain further: Bush used the trifecta punchline, setting it up with the claim that he had stated the three conditions. But he hadn't...it was Gore.
 
If I read what you wrote correctly...let me just bold it over here: "Bush's tax cut, the first one at least, was 1.6 trillion dollars. Then there was 674(?) billion dollar cut later. " That's 2.2 trillion dollars in tax cuts, can I get a source on that? [/B]
Click to expand...

Let me be clear in saying that Bush proposed a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut. He sold it as costing only 1.6 trillion, but hidden costs (e.g. interest on the debt) pushes it upwards.

See economist Paul Krugman's book _The Great Unraveling_.

Or you can just go to google and type "1.6 trillion tax cut"; "674 billion tax cut"

The government saved and estimated 65+ billion dollars over seven years. Essentially what the reform did is cap the spending at 35% increase over seven years instead of the original 50%.
Click to expand...

Now may I ask your source for this statistic? (Hopefully it's not Robert Rector.) "Welfare Reform", as I know, replaced AFDC with TANF, and gives more control to states. People are only allowed to be on the system for five years (life time), or an individual state can restrict that to two. Critics contended this would be bad in time of recession because the people most desperately in need of benefits would be tough outta luck.

let me thank you for the insult as nothing shows a good argument like insulting someone for asking a question. You seem to be the best at that around here, kudos to you for that.
Click to expand...

Oh, any time. Although, maybe before asking the next straightforward question you can first consult the one true god .

I did do this with the little side topic of welfare reform and the only thing of interest I could find was a Republican paper/memo:
In both 1995 and 1996, Clinton vetoed welfare reform (the first bill would have saved $94 billion over seven years; the second would have saved $64 billion over seven years) -- despite having promised to "end welfare as we know it" during the 1992 campaign.
Click to expand...

It's the same seven year projection (written in 1998).

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1998/smallgov-jt.htm

Is your statistic the same projection from seven years ago?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom