President bush set a record deficit of $482 billion US money

[elegant-one]

Quote:

Originally Posted by seonmi About the budget deficit, it's due to all the tax cut that Bush has done, which is what everyone wanted. Tax is an important source of income for the government, so cutting it means reducing government's income. With the same level of expenditure, you can't avoid debt from abroad, which is budget deficit. Just my 2 cents.

That simply is not a truth/fact. It has been proven, that if you CUT taxes the government actually receives more income not the other way around.
The more you cut taxes, the more money the people have, the more they spend, start new businesses, invest in existing businesses hence owners hire more people paying taxes = revenue increases.

Its the pork spending that needs to be cut.

 

[rbella]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer I'd kiss you right now if I could get away with it. My money. I earned it. I worked, sweat, sacrificed time with my family and kids for it. It's mine. Not anyone else's. Who's got the RIGHT to tell me that I have to give my money, which *I* earned, away to someone else? I HAVE to? No, no I do not. If I CHOOSE to, that's one thing entirely, but HAVE to? No.

I'd kiss you too!

Quote:

Originally Posted by elegant-one That simply is not a truth/fact. It has been proven, that if you CUT taxes the government actually receives more income not the other way around. The more you cut taxes, the more money the people have, the more they spend, start new businesses, invest in existing businesses hence owners hire more people paying taxes = revenue increases. Its the pork spending that needs to be cut.

Couldn't have said that better, elegant. I don't get why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

 

[elegant-one]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbella I'd kiss you too! Couldn't have said that better, elegant. I don't get why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

I'd kiss you too!

Most times, I just get tired of trying to explain it

 

[seonmi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elegant-one That simply is not a truth/fact. It has been proven, that if you CUT taxes the government actually receives more income not the other way around. The more you cut taxes, the more money the people have, the more they spend, start new businesses, invest in existing businesses hence owners hire more people paying taxes = revenue increases. Its the pork spending that needs to be cut.

I wasn't going to say all the technical stuff here. But as an Economics major, I've learned that cutting tax is not the optimal solution (may I say the worst one) to increase national income. When tax is cut, it still depends on how much of the tax cut people spend and how much they choose to save. So the amount they spend (which no one can control or predict) determines the income increased. While consider the government doesn't cut tax but increase their own expenditure. That money sure will be spent to generate more income.

Anyway, I know we all want lower tax rates because that means more money directly to our pockets. But academically (not politically which usually includes manipulation for the benefit of certain groups of people), cutting tax is not the best way to go.

Macroecon is one of my favorite things. Sorry for being so nerdy

 

[duckduck]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratmist According to the latest US Census Bureau figures (2006), 12.3% of Americans are classified as living in poverty. That's about 36.5 million Americans. How the hell has it come to this?

Okay, so basically the US Census Bureau's version of "poverty" is crap.

To understand this, it is important to understand how these numbers are calculated. This statistic is taken from income tax forms filed by individuals, and then compared to a number based on marital status and number of dependents to see if they qualify. I have some numbers to help illustrate.

If you filed in 2007 as single with no dependents, than if your Adjusted Gross Income was less than $10,210 that year, you would be considered below the poverty line. Because the Adjusted Gross Income is used, this leads to all sorts of inconsistency. For example, I purchased a house in 2007, which was a hugeeee tax deduction. So, while I worked full time for the entire year and earned more than enough to live on, I would be counted as one of those 36.5 million below the threshold. On the other hand, people who qualify for welfare and similar federal aid programs are often considered above this poverty threshold.

There is a second component to the inaccuracy in this number - age. In fact, half of the people considered to be in poverty are under the age of 24. Working part time in high school, taking a job to pay rent through college, or starting out at the bottom rung in a career are all pretty typical activities for people in this age group, and, well, they frankly don't pay too well. In fact, most of these activities pay well below the poverty threshold. Not surprisingly, as age goes up, promotions are made, better jobs are obtained, and lo and behold, the poverty level drops off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer We have the kids of the 80s & 90s who have grown up being sorely enabled by the previous generations. The Baby Boomers didn't want their kids to do without, or to have to work for anything, and so those kids didn't.

Yeah, there is probably some of that too, but the truth is that "poverty" rates in the US have been between 10 and 15% since 1970, and before that they were much higher. Not saying kids with a sense on entitlement aren't assholes or anything, just saying that the poverty threshold is a poor measure of it.

 

[rbella]

Quote:

Originally Posted by seonmi I wasn't going to say all the technical stuff here. But as an Economics major, I've learned that cutting tax is not the optimal solution (may I say the worst one) to increase national income. When tax is cut, it still depends on how much of the tax cut people spend and how much they choose to save. So the amount they spend (which no one can control or predict) determines the income increased. While consider the government doesn't cut tax but increase their own expenditure. That money sure will be spent to generate more income. Anyway, I know we all want lower tax rates because that means more money directly to our pockets. But academically (not politically which usually includes manipulation for the benefit of certain groups of people), cutting tax is not the best way to go. Macroecon is one of my favorite things. Sorry for being so nerdy

As counter-intuitive as it sounds, you are incorrect. It has been proven time and again that the more money people have, the more they spend. The more that is spent, the more goes back to the government.

What you are saying is that we need the government to control how we spend our money, not the private sector. I STRONGLY disagree with this. The private sector is what keeps this country strong. The more you tax individuals, businesses and people in the higher income brackets, the more you take money out of the pockets of those who are willing to filter that money back into society. It is unconscionable to tax the hell out of those in higher income brackets simply because they have succeeded in life. All that taxing does is create more government programs which require more taxes which enables people who live off of handouts to be more dependent on the government. It is a vicious cycle.

And, I respectfully disagree with the argument that you are coming from this academically. You are most definitely arguing based on what you have learned in school, but I would argue that the majority of your professors are definitely inserting their political opinions. Therefore, your argument is political.

 

[TUPRNUT]

I'm no tax expert, but I live in Indiana where our govenment has taken a major turn over the last several years - going from a $200 million defecit to a $1.4 billion surplus. We've had 3 years of balanced budgets, paid back over $750 million to education (past due) & removed nearly $250 million in unnecessary government spending. We rank #1 in the midwest for business climate.

This has all happened, while reducing property taxes - significantly. It's all been a matter of "cutting out the fat" of government, keeping government accountable, and growing business and investments.

Indiana isn't the promised land, by any means, but I'm really proud of what's been accomplished here, economically. And I think it goes to show that cutting out waste, while cutting taxes can add great benefit.

Education Roadmap Promises - Mitch Daniels Courage. Vision. Results.

 

[seonmi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rbella As counter-intuitive as it sounds, you are incorrect. It has been proven time and again that the more money people have, the more they spend. The more that is spent, the more goes back to the government. What you are saying is that we need the government to control how we spend our money, not the private sector. I STRONGLY disagree with this. The private sector is what keeps this country strong. The more you tax individuals, businesses and people in the higher income brackets, the more you take money out of the pockets of those who are willing to filter that money back into society. It is unconscionable to tax the hell out of those in higher income brackets simply because they have succeeded in life. All that taxing does is create more government programs which require more taxes which enables people who live off of handouts to be more dependent on the government. It is a vicious cycle. And, I respectfully disagree with the argument that you are coming from this academically. You are most definitely arguing based on what you have learned in school, but I would argue that the majority of your professors are definitely inserting their political opinions. Therefore, your argument is political.

As much as I hate to run off topic like this, I just want to say some of my thoughts. Yes, my argument is based on what I've learned in school. But are you saying that all the Nobel prize winners inserted their political opinions into their theories which have been around for so many years? I highly doubt that. Professors don't just say what they want to say, they also have to base on researches and textbooks (these theories are widely accepted, just to make it clear). Tax cut has been proved to produce the least result (increasing national income)

And I'm not supporting a big government by any mean. All I was saying is tax cut is not the best thing in the world to increase national income. What about the role of the Federal Reserve (interest rate, required reserve for banks ...)? I mean there are much more than tax cut. But again, I do understand that we all love tax cut

About the question raised at the beginning of the topic. IMO, Bush is responsible for a big part of the current situation. Tax cut from the Bush administration and high interest rate is not a good combination for the economy. A lot of people had predicted this recession before it actually happened.

My response to Tuprnut: inefficiency should be eliminated no matter where it occurs. The same goes to government expenditure. If the government spends money inefficiently and ineffectively before, the reduction of unnecessary expenditure should make some positive changes.

 

[user79]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer I'll deny it. The nation itself IS destabilized, but children are being fed, vaccinated, and provided with medical care, women are being protected from barbaric behavior, and infrastructure is being built. Those things are being done because the American military is there to stand between (as best it can, we're bound by rules and conventions the insurgents completely ignore) the civilians and the noncombatants.

Well that's debatable. On a blog written by an Iraqi I followed for some time, she wrote that the situation was much worse for the civilians. Women could barely leave the house for fear of violence, rape, etc. Civilians are less safe now on a day to day basis because of sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis, car bombings, etc.

Quote:

We're also foolish enough to have hearts of gold, wherein we feel a compulsion to send our nation's protectors to other countries to try to bring about some kind of change in them, whether it's medical, material, or idealistic.

See that's the thing though, some of the countries don't want to be changed. To some extent, what gives any country the right to tell another country what their ideals should be and how to run their own country? Sovereignty is something most countries value, yet this is denied them when we try to change their governments, their culture, etc. And if that were the case, how come all those African dictators like Mugabe are still in power? Probably because no one cares about Africa strategically (except maybe Egypt.)


Quote:

I would LOVE, for example, to have spent the aid we sent to the tsunami area, physical and monetary, on people within our own boundaries. I would love to be in a world where we as a nation could be isolationist in our views and not have to deal with the crap other countries are doing, whether it's starving or slaughtering their own people, or raping their infants, or whatever. Why? Not because of a lack of compassion on my part because God knows I look at the situations and my heart fucking breaks for all who are caught in it, but because there's a resounding lack of even the merest "Thank you." from ANYONE in the world theater who isn't a direct recipient of the aid. And, there are quite a few times that those who DO receive the aid aren't grateful either.

Among Western democracies, I think the USA gives one of the smallest percent of its GNP to foreign aid. I think Norway actually gives the most of its GNP to aid. So please don't think that the USA is the only one helping out other countries, because that is simply not the case at all.


Quote:

And, I'm sorry to point it out, but the majority of your posts on the subject of American politics and military ARE anti-American, to the point that rarely, if ever, do I see you post anything to do with the good of the American society, political system, or people.

I never claimed to not be anti-military combat. I do however vehemently deny being anti-American. To me there is a vast difference between society and state, of course society influences the state and vice versa, but I know how to differentiate. Being anti-war and not agreeing with many of the current US foreign policies since some of those policies have affected the entire world negatively, does not equal being anti-American. I don't think it's fair or very articulate to lump everything together. There are a lot of Americans who share my views - does that make them anti-American? Not really, it's a voice of dissent, that's all.

Maybe slightly off topic, but I think the current US administration is one of the biggest disasters in recent decades that has happened in world politics, because whether you or I like it or not, the decisions of the US president and his admin can affect the whole world, and it has. The world has gotten more dangerous, and terrorism has increased since the aftermaths of 9/11. The "war on terror" is just a big farce, it's only creating more terror. So yes, I don't live there, and I can't vote (obviously) because I'm not a citizen and I'm not suggesting that anyone but Americans should be allowed to vote (duh), but the Iraq war has affected everybody, so yes, we at least have a right to have an opinion on it.

 

[TUPRNUT]

Well that's debatable. On a blog written by an Iraqi I followed for some time, she wrote that the situation was much worse for the civilians. Women could barely leave the house for fear of violence, rape, etc. Civilians are less safe now on a day to day basis because of sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis, car bombings, etc.


This may very well be true. But remeber that this is one individual's experience.... it has very much to do with where that person lives.

My husband and my husband's military friends have told of very different experiences. Yes, they were not in Iraq before the US invasion, but they have had a lot of contact with Iraqi civillians who have shared a great deal of gratitude for their sacrifice and presence. My husband saw a great change in the province he was stationed and had many positive experience with lcoal children who loved our soldiers and felt protected by their presence.

Let us all keep in mind that there are many sides to this story and that we have been there for (only) 5+ years. I think there has been remarkable progress in that amount of time, considering wars past and the amount of time it has taken for other countries to get on their feet.

 

[rbella]

Quote:

Originally Posted by seonmi As much as I hate to run off topic like this, I just want to say some of my thoughts. Yes, my argument is based on what I've learned in school. But are you saying that all the Nobel prize winners inserted their political opinions into their theories which have been around for so many years? I highly doubt that.

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that this all comes down to philosophical differences. For instance, it is possible to find research that shows tax cuts are the best for the economy. However, you will be hard pressed to find a professor who is making barely $35,000 a year tout the excellence behind less government intervention.

I believe the money I make should stay in my pocket. I adamantly feel that Big Control from Big Government is totally unproductive and results in a society that borders on socialism and takes us further and further from what this country is supposed to be about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seonmi Professors don't just say what they want to say, they also have to base on researches and textbooks (these theories are widely accepted, just to make it clear). Tax cut has been proved to produce the least result (increasing national income)

Well, actually, yes they do. The classroom is their platform. I have attended college (although it was forever ago-I'm old) and it is very apparent that professors insert their opinions and use available studies, research, etc. to back up their views. It is just like the pharmaceutical company that funds a "non-interested third party study" to obtain significant data on the benefits of their drug. While the results of those studies can be interpreted as true, there are 10 other independent studies out there negating the results. It is not difficult to find research to support your opinion on just about anything....

I guess what I am saying is I think you have to decide what theory you buy into? Governmental control of your money (more taxes) or private sector (tax cuts). In my opinion it is a no-brainer.