Attention: Deficit!
- Thread starter Tricky
- Start date
Oddly, the spending increases no matter who is in office, this is truly a case of bipartisan cooperation! Of course, anyone with a brain would prefer "tax and spend" to "borrow and spend", but then again, when was the last time we saw a real fiscal conservative? Clinton?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Attention: Deficit!
Well, let's take a look at the position taken by the left today.
http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/
The kids.
Some things never change.
Snide said:
Well, let's take a look at the position taken by the left today.
http://www.moveon.org/cbs/ad/
The kids.
Some things never change.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Zero said:Oddly, the spending increases no matter who is in office, this is truly a case of bipartisan cooperation! Of course, anyone with a brain would prefer "tax and spend" to "borrow and spend", but then again, when was the last time we saw a real fiscal conservative? Clinton?
Why would I prefer to have more money taken from me and spent on stupid crap to having less money taken from me and spent on stupid crap? The preference should be on less spending, not more as long as we tax enough.
PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,253
Tricky said:
deficit up to $521bn
I was listening to how President Bush has unveiled his budget for the 2005 fiscal year, squeezing non-defence (inc. agriculture and environmental protection taking the biggest reductions) spending in an attempt to reduce the record budget gap.
trillion dollar plus tax cuts, while the tax base erodes away with loss of full time jobs
trips to Mars
7% increase in military spending in the next year
funding the Missile Defense program (inc. in military budget surely)
more spending on Iraq, whose costs in 2004 were $85bn plus
the new Medicare drug benefit, which is now expected to cost $534bn over the next eight years, as opposed to $400bn when it was passed in December.
Aren't republicans traditionally fiscally conservative?
maybe Bush expects to find money trees on Mars.
by this time next week the deficit will be up to $565 billion or more at this rate!
Sure, if you say so...shall we cut pork, or slash real programs, though?Grammatron said:
Remember, also, taxes aren't a burden; taxes are the dues that we pay to be Americans, and we should pay them with pride, and then demand they be spent wisely.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Zero said:
I don't remember any required fees I had to pay to BE an American. This is news to me. Also, I hate to repeat what some said on this forum, but I don't pay taxes, they take them from me.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Zero said:
Also, I'm all for slashing pork programs. Let's start with bailouts to corporations and move to bailouts for people.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Attention: Deficit!
Way to miss the mark on what the left thinks the solution to deficits is. Your response implied they believe the answer is to cut spending. It isn't. Their answer is to increase taxes. Have you ever known a democratic candidate for president who didn't say they weren't going to raise taxes? I haven't. Have you heard any of them advocate cutting spending like in the credit card example you gave? I haven't. Except when it comes to defense spending.
"He won't tell you. I just did." Fritz Mondale, 1984. I laughed my tail off when I was watching the convention when he said that. I knew right then he blew it. And sure enough, he lost the election in the biggest landslide ever.
Listen to the Democratic candidates today. Same thing. Except Lieberman.
Snide said:
Way to miss the mark on what the left thinks the solution to deficits is. Your response implied they believe the answer is to cut spending. It isn't. Their answer is to increase taxes. Have you ever known a democratic candidate for president who didn't say they weren't going to raise taxes? I haven't. Have you heard any of them advocate cutting spending like in the credit card example you gave? I haven't. Except when it comes to defense spending.
"He won't tell you. I just did." Fritz Mondale, 1984. I laughed my tail off when I was watching the convention when he said that. I knew right then he blew it. And sure enough, he lost the election in the biggest landslide ever.
Listen to the Democratic candidates today. Same thing. Except Lieberman.
Snide
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,198
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Attention: Deficit!
Luke, please re-read our discussion. You miss the point, then introduce statements irrelevant to what I've said.
Originally posted by Luke T.
Way to miss the mark on what the left thinks the solution to deficits is. Your response implied they believe the answer is to cut spending.
You answered my assertion not by denying it, but by making an assertion against me. An incorrect one, at that. All my response suggested and/or implied was that the Left of the 80s wanted us to deal with the defecit/debt, which can only be accomplished by spending less than you take in (make). I submit, therefore, that I did not miss the mark. Please show me my words which would indicate otherwise.
It isn't. Their answer is to increase taxes. Have you ever known a democratic candidate for president who didn't say they weren't going to raise taxes? I haven't.
Well, this isn't what we've been discussing. But, to answer, yes. Mondale:
Have you heard any of them advocate cutting spending like in the credit card example you gave? I haven't.
Missed it again. I didn't say, "Cut spending." I said, "Spend less than you make." That's how a surplus happens, like under our last Democratic president.
Except when it comes to defense spending.
"He won't tell you. I just did." Fritz Mondale, 1984. I laughed my tail off when I was watching the convention when he said that. I knew right then he blew it. And sure enough, he lost the election in the biggest landslide ever.
Listen to the Democratic candidates today. Same thing. Except Lieberman.
I noted Fritz's quote, but I think you got your history a bit wrong. The rest is more irrelevance.
Anyway, I was eighteen at the time, and I remember also thinking he'd blown it, because the public didn't want to hear such candor, regardless of whether it would prove to be prophetic. (It sorda did and sorta didn't...but I don't want to run off on a tangent.
)
To help make myself clear, my only point in our conversation is that you said, as if to prove the critics of the defecits of the 80s wrong:
We did do something about it, under a Democratic president. My credit card scenario then described your position accurately (WTTEO: "You're prediction was wrong!").
Please show me where I am incorrect, and I will retract if indeed I am.
edited for clarity in this line: "I reminded you that if that's what was predicted, it was on the premise that it would happen if we didn't do something about the deficit."
Luke, please re-read our discussion. You miss the point, then introduce statements irrelevant to what I've said.
Originally posted by Luke T.
Way to miss the mark on what the left thinks the solution to deficits is. Your response implied they believe the answer is to cut spending.
You answered my assertion not by denying it, but by making an assertion against me. An incorrect one, at that. All my response suggested and/or implied was that the Left of the 80s wanted us to deal with the defecit/debt, which can only be accomplished by spending less than you take in (make). I submit, therefore, that I did not miss the mark. Please show me my words which would indicate otherwise.
It isn't. Their answer is to increase taxes. Have you ever known a democratic candidate for president who didn't say they weren't going to raise taxes? I haven't.
Well, this isn't what we've been discussing. But, to answer, yes. Mondale:
Have you heard any of them advocate cutting spending like in the credit card example you gave? I haven't.
Missed it again. I didn't say, "Cut spending." I said, "Spend less than you make." That's how a surplus happens, like under our last Democratic president.
Except when it comes to defense spending.
"He won't tell you. I just did." Fritz Mondale, 1984. I laughed my tail off when I was watching the convention when he said that. I knew right then he blew it. And sure enough, he lost the election in the biggest landslide ever.
Listen to the Democratic candidates today. Same thing. Except Lieberman.
I noted Fritz's quote, but I think you got your history a bit wrong. The rest is more irrelevance.
Anyway, I was eighteen at the time, and I remember also thinking he'd blown it, because the public didn't want to hear such candor, regardless of whether it would prove to be prophetic. (It sorda did and sorta didn't...but I don't want to run off on a tangent.
)To help make myself clear, my only point in our conversation is that you said, as if to prove the critics of the defecits of the 80s wrong:
I reminded you that if it was predicted, it was on the premise that it would happen if we didn't do something about the deficit.
We did do something about it, under a Democratic president. My credit card scenario then described your position accurately (WTTEO: "You're prediction was wrong!").
Please show me where I am incorrect, and I will retract if indeed I am.
edited for clarity in this line: "I reminded you that if that's what was predicted, it was on the premise that it would happen if we didn't do something about the deficit."
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Hoo-boy. Tricky, you don't screw around when you start a thread, do you?
I read a book a while ago about General Motors, and their loss of something like $5 billion dollars one fiscal year. One of the architects of that debacle was one Lloyd Reuss, (I think that's how you spell it), the man who at one point headed up the GM board. He declared that "The marketplace will save us." As it happened, it didn't, and he lost his job. (And a lot of GM employees lost theirs because Reuss was too stupid to figure out that when you are LOSING MONEY, you start looking at where you're losing it, and start asking hard questions.)
True, we had a Democratic President and wound up with a budget that was lowering the deficit. Give Clinton credit for having sufficient cojones to sign off on such budgets. But also give the credit to a Republican controlled Congress which started looking at where we were losing capital.
Unfortunately, we now have a President, with an MBA no less, who can't seem to figure out what Clinton couldn't miss. I'm more than a little galled by the idea that we're now going to get a presciption drug plan which will cost billions in tax dollars, but in the end is something NO ONE WANTS! (Sorry, I probably shouldn't have shouted.) We have more and more pork creeping into the budget, with some genuinely bizarre programs being set up, many of which are continuing programs which will probably never be phased out. Ever.
I mean, isn't this the sort of thing George was running against?
Did I miss something?
BTW: Check this out.
I read a book a while ago about General Motors, and their loss of something like $5 billion dollars one fiscal year. One of the architects of that debacle was one Lloyd Reuss, (I think that's how you spell it), the man who at one point headed up the GM board. He declared that "The marketplace will save us." As it happened, it didn't, and he lost his job. (And a lot of GM employees lost theirs because Reuss was too stupid to figure out that when you are LOSING MONEY, you start looking at where you're losing it, and start asking hard questions.)
True, we had a Democratic President and wound up with a budget that was lowering the deficit. Give Clinton credit for having sufficient cojones to sign off on such budgets. But also give the credit to a Republican controlled Congress which started looking at where we were losing capital.
Unfortunately, we now have a President, with an MBA no less, who can't seem to figure out what Clinton couldn't miss. I'm more than a little galled by the idea that we're now going to get a presciption drug plan which will cost billions in tax dollars, but in the end is something NO ONE WANTS! (Sorry, I probably shouldn't have shouted.) We have more and more pork creeping into the budget, with some genuinely bizarre programs being set up, many of which are continuing programs which will probably never be phased out. Ever.
I mean, isn't this the sort of thing George was running against?
Did I miss something?
BTW: Check this out.
Guess what?
GWB plans on sending you a big invoice if he gets re elected:
Noticeably absent from next year's request is money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. White House budget director Joshua Bolten estimated that another $50 billion would be needed to cover those costs next year. The White House expects to cover the war costs with supplemental funds after next fall's elections.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7858468.htm
GWB plans on sending you a big invoice if he gets re elected:
Noticeably absent from next year's request is money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. White House budget director Joshua Bolten estimated that another $50 billion would be needed to cover those costs next year. The White House expects to cover the war costs with supplemental funds after next fall's elections.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7858468.htm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Attention: Deficit!
So if you raise taxes, you think you are now going to be spending less than you take in? It sure sounds like that would work, only it doesn't. That is my point.
The left thinks they have the answer to Bush's deficit. And their answer is to raise taxes in the belief this will cause more to come in than go out.
My state is currently in the learning process on that issue. Too much going out, not enough coming in to cover it. It starts when they raise taxes to solve the budget problem. So businesses leave for greener pastures. Now the state no longer receives any tax money at all from the companies that left, or their employees who are now out of jobs. In fact, now they have a growing unemployment problem. The largest rate in the country. Which means even more people who need government assitance, which means even more going out than coming in. It's a vicious cycle, and yet they continue to try to solve the problem by raising taxes some more. They raised them TWICE last year, and there is another Measure being voted on today to raise them again. They just don't get it. There is not one major company left in this state because of their idiocy.
That's the Democratic way.
Snide said:
So if you raise taxes, you think you are now going to be spending less than you take in? It sure sounds like that would work, only it doesn't. That is my point.
The left thinks they have the answer to Bush's deficit. And their answer is to raise taxes in the belief this will cause more to come in than go out.
My state is currently in the learning process on that issue. Too much going out, not enough coming in to cover it. It starts when they raise taxes to solve the budget problem. So businesses leave for greener pastures. Now the state no longer receives any tax money at all from the companies that left, or their employees who are now out of jobs. In fact, now they have a growing unemployment problem. The largest rate in the country. Which means even more people who need government assitance, which means even more going out than coming in. It's a vicious cycle, and yet they continue to try to solve the problem by raising taxes some more. They raised them TWICE last year, and there is another Measure being voted on today to raise them again. They just don't get it. There is not one major company left in this state because of their idiocy.
That's the Democratic way.
What confuses me is the religious devotion to tax cuts, and the anti-American(IMO) attitude that taxes are somehow evil. We have a surplus? Tax cuts. Recession? Tax cut. Rebound? Tax cut. War in Iraq? Tax cut. Janet Jackson's boobie? You guessed it, another tax cut!!
Why not cut politically-motivated pork, instead of social programs that work, and that people generally support?
Why not cut politically-motivated pork, instead of social programs that work, and that people generally support?
Zero said:
New JREF server? Tax cut!
I couldn't agree more on the pork thing. The problem is that with even generally supported programs, there is a lot of waste, too. It is my personal opinion that half our tax dollars are wasted. (No, Claus, I have nothing to back that up. It's just an opinion.
)The American revolution was based in part on what are today relatively infintesimal taxes. "Taxation without representation..."
The government, telemarketers, door-to-door salesmen. I don't know about anyone else, but it feels like someone is always trying to stick their uninvited hand in my pocket, and I'm sick of it.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Luke T. said:
No argument there, but the fact is, Luke, people do it because it works. They have it down literally to a science. All anyone needs to do is claim a tax hike is "for the children," and you'd be damned hard pressed to get it eliminated. Ever.
Don't other countries pay alot more taxes than we ever have? Why are we complaining so much? Well, besides the government waste, that is?
I believe in lean government...but in a systematic way, cutting waste from everything, instead of just slashing dollars from certain programs. In other words, making every single decision about getting the most bang for the buck, instead of cutting funding off the top.
Here's a household example: I know people who have huge homes and giant SUVs, who wind up needing extra money. Instead of getting another job or putting their wives to work(=raising taxes), they cut out their kid's activities, dress them is shoddy second-hand clothing, and barely feed their kids and themselves(=cutting social programs). Eventually, they end up declaring bankruptcy, so they can keep the house and SUV. The wiser strategy would be to trade in the car and sell the house, and get something more in line with their ability to pay. In addition, they can shave a few bucks here and there on food and clothing without resorting to poverty-level spending.
Government is the same way, IMO. There is alot of money being wasted on things we simply don't need and that don't help anyone. Scrap that funding, as well as go "bargain shopping" in other ways besides cutting social programs.
I believe in lean government...but in a systematic way, cutting waste from everything, instead of just slashing dollars from certain programs. In other words, making every single decision about getting the most bang for the buck, instead of cutting funding off the top.
Here's a household example: I know people who have huge homes and giant SUVs, who wind up needing extra money. Instead of getting another job or putting their wives to work(=raising taxes), they cut out their kid's activities, dress them is shoddy second-hand clothing, and barely feed their kids and themselves(=cutting social programs). Eventually, they end up declaring bankruptcy, so they can keep the house and SUV. The wiser strategy would be to trade in the car and sell the house, and get something more in line with their ability to pay. In addition, they can shave a few bucks here and there on food and clothing without resorting to poverty-level spending.
Government is the same way, IMO. There is alot of money being wasted on things we simply don't need and that don't help anyone. Scrap that funding, as well as go "bargain shopping" in other ways besides cutting social programs.
Snide
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,198
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Attention: Deficit!
All of this soapboxing is fine, but entirely irrelevant to anything I initially brought up. Remember, all I was responding to was the implication of this statement you made:Luke T. said:
PygmyPlaidGiraffe
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2003
- Messages
- 1,253
The US commitment to maintain an occupying security force of 138,000 in Iraq until the end of 2005 must be taken into account in regards to projections about deficit budgets, and debt in general.
Spending could still take an unexpected jump because of surging hostilities in Iraq.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/summarytables.html
The Pentagon told Congress the week of April 18th that it would need another $4 billion to get through the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. That's on top of $87 billion approved in a supplemental budget for Iraq and Afghanistan for this year.
The White House is expected to ask for $50 billion to $75 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2005 fiscal year.
Spending could still take an unexpected jump because of surging hostilities in Iraq.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/summarytables.html
The Pentagon told Congress the week of April 18th that it would need another $4 billion to get through the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. That's on top of $87 billion approved in a supplemental budget for Iraq and Afghanistan for this year.
The White House is expected to ask for $50 billion to $75 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2005 fiscal year.
Robert Bixby