U.S. can’t afford tax cuts any longer, Voinovich says

[pan6467]

With Voinovich saying this and his past differences with Bush, it is no wonder the Bushies are trying to destroy him. Cleveland's own Mike Trivisonno 10 years after the fact is trying to raise a campaign saying it was Voinovich not Modell that truly took the Browns out of Cleveland.

The Bushies are hitting Voinovich hard and I have a feeling will continue until he loses his seat to a Dem in '08 OR he falls into line and just does as told.

A true conservative and a great man. I disagree with him and think he sold out on the Gay Marriage issue but the man is a truly great politician and has always been.

Link: http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.p...202-A1-04.html

U.S. can’t afford tax cuts any longer, Voinovich says
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Jack Torry
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH



WASHINGTON — Extending tax cuts that President Bush wants to make permanent would place an immoral burden on future generations of Americans, a defiant Sen. George V. Voinovich of Ohio warned yesterday.

"It’s time to put the tax-cut medicine back on the shelf," he said, pointing out that the federal government is spending billions to stabilize Iraq, protect the country against terrorism and rebuild the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast.

"We’ve got to make some tough choices around here," Voinovich said, adding that it would be "immoral to bequeath trillions of dollars in debt to our children and grandchildren."

Bush called for preserving the tax cuts in his State of the Union address Tuesday, but Voinovich, a fellow Republican, said that lawmakers must devise ways to slash the federal deficit. Without reducing spending or allowing many tax cuts to expire, the national debt will grow to a staggering $11.2 trillion by the end of 2010, he said.

"This will not be politically easy, as I understand," Voinovich said. "The simple, undeniable fact is that we can’t have it all."

Voinovich spoke as the Senate opened debate on a tax-reduction measure that includes shielding more than 17 million Americans from the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to make certain that the wealthy paid at least some tax. But throughout the years, the tax has taken an increasingly larger bite out of middle- and upper-middle-income taxpayers.

Senate Republican leaders want to move the bill into a conference committee, where it could be combined in some fashion with a House version approved last year. The White House and conservative Republicans back the House bill because it would extend through 2010 lower federal taxes on corporate dividends and capital gains, the latter being the profit from the sale of stock and real estate.

Those tax breaks are scheduled to expire at the end of 2008. The House also has approved a measure that would protect middle-income taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax.

In his State of the Union address, Bush urged that Congress make permanent all the tax cuts from 2001, 2002 and 2003, which include federal income taxes and child-tax credits. Most of those tax cuts are scheduled to expire during the next four years.

After supporting Bush’s tax cuts in the president’s first term, Voinovich in the past year expressed deep misgivings about the growing federal deficit. Critics suggested Voinovich’s shift occurred after the 2004 elections when Republicans increased their Senate majority to 55 and no longer needed Voinovich’s vote to pass future tax cuts.

But Voinovich is the reason the tax cuts on dividends and capital gains expire at the end of 2008. When Republicans pushed those investment tax breaks through Congress in 2003, they wanted them to last for 10 years. But Voinovich would only support the tax cuts on dividends and capital gains if they expired at the end of 2008 and, in the closely divided Senate, he prevailed.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office last month concluded that the government would operate on a small surplus by 2012 if all the Bush tax cuts expired on schedule.

Voinovich conceded that he voted for the tax cuts in Bush’s first term to provide a jolt to a then-listless economy. But Voinovich said today "the economy is growing" and that "like any other medicine, an overdose of tax cuts can, in my opinion, do more harm than the original disease."

He dismissed conservative claims that tax cuts do not cost the government money because they spark the economy and generate greater receipts. Instead, Voinovich said while the Bush tax cuts did not lead to the staggering revenue losses originally projected, they "are never free."

Despite the sharp rhetoric, Voinovich did not completely rule out tax reductions. At one point, he said he could not support tax cuts "at this time." And Voinovich would support protection for many taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax, if that provision is paid for through either cuts or increases of other taxes.

jtorry@dispatch.com

It's fun here in Ohio watching the GOP destroy their own, however it is sad to see them trying to destroy the truly good guys, Petro, Voinovich, Dewine and not the bad ones like Blackwell, Taft, Montgomery.....

[shakran]

Or Voinovich could do what a certain other member of his party did and defect to the democratic side. Frankly I would hope not - I didn't like it when it happened before, even if the republicans were being total asses to him. I felt people elected him as a republican and his job is to represent them as such.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by shakran

Or Voinovich could do what a certain other member of his party did and defect to the democratic side. Frankly I would hope not - I didn't like it when it happened before, even if the republicans were being total asses to him. I felt people elected him as a republican and his job is to represent them as such.

Perhaps. On the other hand Nebraska has Senator Ben Nelson, an elected Democrat that cozies up the Republicans every chance that he gets. In no way can it be said that he represents Nebraska Democrats. He is the quintessential Republican in Democrats clothing. However, finding a true Democrat in Nebraska is akin to finding a 30 year old virgin. You know that they're out there, but they're damn quiet about it. But, to balance things out the Republicans have Chuck Hagel, who consistantly pisses off the more conservative of Nebraka Republicans, by moving further and further away from President Bush. I guess to be a "good" Republican, in this state, it is a requirement to march lockstep with the party, no matter your personal convictions.

In the end, I think that it boils down to same old trend of extremism. For some reason, it seems that we expect our elected officials to be either so far to the right, or so far to the left, that middle ground cannot even be seen, much less reached.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by shakran

Or Voinovich could do what a certain other member of his party did and defect to the democratic side. Frankly I would hope not - I didn't like it when it happened before, even if the republicans were being total asses to him. I felt people elected him as a republican and his job is to represent them as such.

I don't think he'd switch parties but it is amazing what the GOP is doing to their own here in Ohio from the leaders like Voinovich, Dewine, Petro and so on, who put PEOPLE over the party. While they allow their pieces of shit run the party, because they support Bush and are extremely partisan, refusing to ever bend or negotiate. It's sad because the truly good GOPers that may have gotten my vote are being hit so bad that I'll stay with the Dems and thumb my nose at the GOP.

Sad thing is Voinovich is probably speaking what many GOP senators and Reps. believe but have been pressured, blackmailed, bullied, bought off and so on to vote the "right way" and not their true consciences. All one has to do is see what their precious party does to those who speak out and how effectivey they try to destroy them, and they'll realize they can't afford to speak out.

[NCB]

But yet, voting against the reduction in the rate of growth for entitlements is irresponsible.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by NCB

But yet, voting against the reduction in the rate of growth for entitlements is irresponsible.

What entitlements?

Social Security...... people collecting it were promised certain things when they paid into it..... IT IS government's responsibility to live up to those promises. SS would be fine if in the 70's and into the present Congress didn't fill it with IOUs.

Welfare, Clinton had great reform, Bush's reforms could be better but I'll grant you that people who refuse to work should not get paid, however society (and government) should do what they can to make those unable to work have some form of respectable life and income. That doesn't mean premium cable television, great cars and Rolexs it means a roof over their head, food on their table and the ability to have enough money to pay for their utilities and some form of lifestyle.

Unemployment..... Don't know about the rest of the country but here it is very difficult to get, when you do get it it is limited to what at most what your pay was, you have to prove you are looking for a job and it runs out in I believe 8-12 weeks. Plus, it is not all tax based, the company pays 1/2 and taxes pay 1/2. Again, as workers it is something the government promises us when we work and pay into it. That if we lose our jobs and we have legit reasons we can collect.

Heating programs where those in poverty and working their asses off need some form of help to pay for the excessive fuel bills so they don't freeze during the winter?

What entitlements?

Education..... where the tutions are going up faster than the loans and grants are, making college unaffordable to more and more people?

Or maybe you mean corporate welfare like ATP's (discussed here > http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...=100481&page=2 (POST 55))

Or the fact that Billionaires and Fortune 500 companies take advantage of funds designed to help struggling family farmers? (Talk about fucking greed destroy a program aimed to help those who truly need it...... )

Or other programs where Billionaires and big business work the loopholes to collect BILLIONS earmarked to help people who truly need the money..... then people defend Big business and the rich for these cheap ass tactics but degrade those, ridicule those and begrudge those for whom the programs were truly meant for?

[NCB]

Wow pan, sounds like you have long soup lines up there. Too bad reality doesnt concur:

http://jfs.ohio.gov/releases/unemp/2...essRelease.htm

And per capita income continues to rise

As for the heating fuel issue, the govt comes to the rescue again, spending more than ever before in order to care for people from craddle to grave:

http://www.citizensenergy.com/Oil_Heat_Program.htm

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by NCB

Wow pan, sounds like you have long soup lines up there. Too bad reality doesnt concur:

http://jfs.ohio.gov/releases/unemp/2...essRelease.htm

And per capita income continues to rise

As for the heating fuel issue, the govt comes to the rescue again, spending more than ever before in order to care for people from craddle to grave:

http://www.citizensenergy.com/Oil_Heat_Program.htm

You lost me here.

I asked what you meant by entitlements and you give me info and say nothing about what your definition of entitlements are?

I gave the definitions I hear most GOP calling "entitlements" such as SS, Unemployment, Student loans and grants, and so on then argued Billionaires and Fortune 500 companies take advantage of federally funded programs moreso than the people who need them.

So what is your point? I never said anything about soup lines or that unempolymet is high (it has been with so many factories closing down, but there are a lot of part-time minimum waged jobs out here also.)

Median income to me means nothing, it doesn't tell how much the true average family makes. That just means 50% make more than that and 50% make less than that. The true stat I would be interested in seeing is the percentages of families/households living in the the 10-20,000, 20-30,000 range, the 30-40,000 and so on all the way up. And then show me which way those percentages have moved. That would be the true indicator of how the country's families are moving not the median.

But again, that has nothing to do with the topic or my asking you what you definition of entitlements are? And do you support corporate welfare and corporations using legal loopholes and high paid lawyers to collect millions?

And where's your argument on what Voinovich said? I see you trying to change the subject and totally ignoring the topic.

[alpha phi]

I don't know about soup lines, but my realtor
told me that michigan and ohio are tied
for first place in home forclosures.
Which really sucks.....seeing as how
my house in michigan is up for sale
It's been on the market for 9 months now
It's a nice little house, perfect for a starter home
I bought it with a FHA insured loan
No grant, entitlement, or giveaway
In fact I've paid $29 a month back to FHA
for the privledge of the low down payment
assocated with that loan.
Due to foolish budget cuts and restrictions
the house no longer qualifies for FHA
Out there somewhere there is a young couple who should be
property tax paying home owners.....
bettering themselves like I had the opportunity to do.
instead they are living in a low tax apartment
flushing their money down the rent toilet, going nowhere.
In my old hometown we lost about 50 high paying factory jobs
we gained in jobs over all though
A new video store, subway, applebee's, gas station, and mini mart
cool!...... minimum wage, no benifits.
The number are so rosey indeed!
10% increase in jobs...all low paying
The average income is up too......Because the out of town owners
of the new franchise stores are raking it in.

[aceventura3]

I am a small business owner. When Bush got congress to agree to tax cuts, I received a check for $600. I used the money to help buy a new copy machine in my office. With my old machine I had an employee spending about 15 to 20 hours per week using the copier. With the new machine the time is about 7 hours. I paid the employee $10/hr. With the extra time we trained him to handle some higher value customer service duties. After he proved he could handle the new responsibilities I gave him a $2/hr. raise.

Because of the Bush tax cut that employee is making about $4,000 more per year. I have a more productive employee and I am providing better service to my customers. With better service his job and income is more secure as is mine. Thanks to Bush's tax cut.

If you multiply my experience buy all of the other small business owners who invested tax cuts back into their business, you can clearly see how those cuts were good for the economy, good for working people and good for increasing federal tax revenues.

If you raise taxes my business may not grow, with no growth I cut costs, payroll is my biggest controllable cost, I would have to let people go or cut their hours. I loose, my employees loose, the government looses.

To those who normally don't think this stuff through, including those in Washington, please think about it. try talking to some small business owners. Please understand that small business is the driver of our economy.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am a small business owner. When Bush got congress to agree to tax cuts, I received a check for $600. I used the money to help buy a new copy machine in my office. With my old machine I had an employee spending about 15 to 20 hours per week using the copier. With the new machine the time is about 7 hours. I paid the employee $10/hr. With the extra time we trained him to handle some higher value customer service duties. After he proved he could handle the new responsibilities I gave him a $2/hr. raise.

Because of the Bush tax cut that employee is making about $4,000 more per year. I have a more productive employee and I am providing better service to my customers. With better service his job and income is more secure as is mine. Thanks to Bush's tax cut.

If you multiply my experience buy all of the other small business owners who invested tax cuts back into their business, you can clearly see how those cuts were good for the economy, good for working people and good for increasing federal tax revenues.

If you raise taxes my business may not grow, with no growth I cut costs, payroll is my biggest controllable cost, I would have to let people go or cut their hours. I loose, my employees loose, the government looses.

To those who normally don't think this stuff through, including those in Washington, please think about it. try talking to some small business owners. Please understand that small business is the driver of our economy.

I understand what you are saying Ace.

But the reality is that we cannot afford tax cuts right now..... we are in a war. It is selfish and destructive to demand tax cuts and to keep spending wildly.

I would have no problem if they cut corporate welfare, ended the loopholes for Big Business and the Billionaires to get ATPs, the farm aid and other programs designed for the PEOPLE and not for them to hire expensive lawyers to find ways to get free money.

Here's an example, there is a pretty well known, well paid man in NE Ohio worth probably enough to buy and sell each and everyone of us on this board, who pays lawyers to get all the family farm aid and any benefits the government gives out. The fucking lawyers cost more than he gets from these programs.... his reasoning..... if he abuses the system enough the government will stop giving out the money.... at the very least he believes he gets money that others would just shit away.

This man's daughter is also a client of the company I work for and has severe addiction problems. Wonder why with a fucking ass like that for a dad. And yes, I know the family quite well, been to dinner at their house quite a few times.

But they keep destroying social programs that help, yet, don't even talk about cutting the corporate welfare.

Wonder which costs taxpayers more.... the money we give to help people advance or corporate welfare???????????

Get Bush to cut those programs and leave education, small business loans, FHA loans and GI benefits alone and then I may be ok with tax cuts.

But until the fucking corporate welfare ends...... I don't want to hear about how we need to cut social programs that help, while cutting taxes for the greedy fucks that are collecting corporate welfare also.

I don't see any GOP Neo cons saying corporate welfare is bad..... but they sure as fuck will complain about programs that help people advance.

[Mojo_PeiPei]

Yeah, I'm on the boat that the tax cuts were good and did help us out of that recession we were experiecing. All things considered though, the Market is strong, employment is great, economy isn't going south, too much of what was a good thing will only hurt us at this rate. You can only realistically shave so much money out of social programs, for better or for worse, but when the deficit keeps ballooning the market/economy will eventually suffer again. The sad thing is I don't even know if repealing the tax cuts will even do much to the all consuming ever growing deficit.

[rlbond86]

yes, to keep these tax cuts and impose our debt on the future is simply irresponsible.
I really wish they would reinstitute pay as you go for things like tax cuts.
Note that the Republicans proposed a bill to reinstitute PAYGO, but exclude tax cuts from being counted as costs. How financially irresponsible can you get?

[pan6467]

Another reality is when the next president is elected they will have a true mess on their hands. And no matter what they do to cut the debt (and they will have to which means they will raise taxes, cut programs to nothing, etc.) they will be blamed by the GOP for bad management.

I said it in '88 and I maybe saying it in '08, the worst thing the Dems can do is win the Presidency, let a GOP try to clean up the mess. Look what happened to Bush 1, he had to raise taxes and try to clean up Reagans mess. That allowed Clinton to come in, and he fixed things (I think he had a lot more but the GOP hounded him to where he couldn't do his job he was elected 2 times to do.)

We'll see, hopefully, in '06 elections the Dems make some headway and the GOP meanwhile take Voinovich's lead and speak out on tax cuts and cutting social programs too deep, while still allowing corporate welfare.

We have a tough road ahead of us, but as long as we put one foot in front of the other and keep walking forward with our eyes on the goal, we can do it. (Very cliche but very true.)

[james t kirk]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am a small business owner. When Bush got congress to agree to tax cuts, I received a check for $600. I used the money to help buy a new copy machine in my office. With my old machine I had an employee spending about 15 to 20 hours per week using the copier. With the new machine the time is about 7 hours. I paid the employee $10/hr. With the extra time we trained him to handle some higher value customer service duties. After he proved he could handle the new responsibilities I gave him a $2/hr. raise.

Because of the Bush tax cut that employee is making about $4,000 more per year. I have a more productive employee and I am providing better service to my customers. With better service his job and income is more secure as is mine. Thanks to Bush's tax cut.

If you multiply my experience buy all of the other small business owners who invested tax cuts back into their business, you can clearly see how those cuts were good for the economy, good for working people and good for increasing federal tax revenues.

If you raise taxes my business may not grow, with no growth I cut costs, payroll is my biggest controllable cost, I would have to let people go or cut their hours. I loose, my employees loose, the government looses.

To those who normally don't think this stuff through, including those in Washington, please think about it. try talking to some small business owners. Please understand that small business is the driver of our economy.

Yeah, but in the mean time, the US debt has grown by trillions of dollars and YOUR share of the debt has increased by more than $4,000.00 and so has your lucky employee's.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

The US gov't can not keep borrowing money year after year at infinitium until such time as you can not afford to pay even the interest on the debt.

At some point in the very near future, another president - not Bush and another Congress, not this one, will have some very serious economic decisions to make. The changes are going to be very harsh and felt by everyone, but there will be nothing he or she can do.

Those decisions will have a far greater effect on you than any $600.00 photo copier.

[james t kirk]

There is one other thing to consider......

If you don't increase taxes NOW (when times are good), and cut spending NOW, and reduce your debt NOW, when exactly were you planning to do it?

When times are bad?

Not likely.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I am a small business owner. When Bush got congress to agree to tax cuts, I received a check for $600. I used the money to help buy a new copy machine in my office. With my old machine I had an employee spending about 15 to 20 hours per week using the copier. With the new machine the time is about 7 hours. I paid the employee $10/hr. With the extra time we trained him to handle some higher value customer service duties. After he proved he could handle the new responsibilities I gave him a $2/hr. raise.

Because of the Bush tax cut that employee is making about $4,000 more per year. I have a more productive employee and I am providing better service to my customers. With better service his job and income is more secure as is mine. Thanks to Bush's tax cut.

If you multiply my experience buy all of the other small business owners who invested tax cuts back into their business, you can clearly see how those cuts were good for the economy, good for working people and good for increasing federal tax revenues.

If you raise taxes my business may not grow, with no growth I cut costs, payroll is my biggest controllable cost, I would have to let people go or cut their hours. I loose, my employees loose, the government looses.

To those who normally don't think this stuff through, including those in Washington, please think about it. try talking to some small business owners. Please understand that small business is the driver of our economy.

This is all well and good as long as the world only lasts a decade or so. But since the earth will presumably not be destroyed in the next 5 years, we need to think long term. And long term, irresponsible tax cuts, ESPECIALLY when paired with huge spending increases, are not sustainable. The economy will suffer. The value of the dollar will go down. And then that extra $4000 your employee is earning won't get him any farther economically than he was when he was earning $4,000 less.

Plus, your customers will no longer have as much disposable income to spend on whatever it is that you sell. Your income will go down, possibly to the point where you'll be forced out of business.

Then we have to take into account the fact that, eventually, one day, we'll get someone responsible in the white house, and they'll realize that the economy's in a deep dark hole and will do what is necessary to correct that. Namely, they'll raise taxes.

With increased taxes, you'll be paying more money trying to help the government pay off the staggering debt its accumulated over the last (then) ten years or so. So not only do you deal with income losses on the customer side, but you deal with expense increases on the business side. You're bleeding money into the government, and you're not replacing it fast enough with customer cash.

Not to mention that your employee, with his $4,000 raise (which btw you may have to cut to make ends meet when income goes down and costs go up) (remember that sentence. It's important in a minute) will also be paying more in taxes, and this in an environment when his dollar doesn't go as far as it used to anyway. So he's REALLY hurting.

Now, remember the part about you possibly having to cut your employee's wages (btw you might have to fire him but let's not take the worst case scenario just yet)? The reason you'd have to cut his wages is because your income would go down at the same time that your expenses would go up.

Does that situation sound familiar? To me it sounds like the situation the government's in right now. They've cut taxes (income) and increased spending (expenses). Now if YOU have to tighten the belt when your expenses go up and your income goes down, and I have to tighten my belt when my expenses go up and my income goes down, how is it logical that the GOVERNMENT gets more healthy when its expenses go up and its income goes down?

It simply doesn't make sense.

You're correct that tax cuts will stimulate the economy. They will ALWAYS stimulate the economy, *short term*. But when you look *long term* you have to be careful about those tax cuts. I'm not saying they're always a bad idea, but they're a terrible idea when you simply can't afford it.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by james t kirk

Yeah, but in the mean time, the US debt has grown by trillions of dollars and YOUR share of the debt has increased by more than $4,000.00 and so has your lucky employee's.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

The US gov't can not keep borrowing money year after year at infinitium until such time as you can not afford to pay even the interest on the debt.

At some point in the very near future, another president - not Bush and another Congress, not this one, will have some very serious economic decisions to make. The changes are going to be very harsh and felt by everyone, but there will be nothing he or she can do.

Those decisions will have a far greater effect on you than any $600.00 photo copier.

Ah yes, but who cares about the future and the people who are going to get hit the hardest? When that happens I'll just blame the Dems.

And fuck my kids and grandkids who inherit this debt. They need to learn to take care of themselves. If they can't afford a college education, then they'll just have to work 40 hours at minimum wage, maybe get 2 jobs and they don't need any entertainment so no cable, no phone, no internet.... and they don't need a car. And if they get sick and have to pay those bills, it's their pwn damn fault. Of course their taxes will be higher than I ever paid, because I was a greedy fuck and wanted tax cuts when the nation couldn't afford them but I NEEDED my toys.

But good point, if you can't pay more in taxes when times are good, what the Hell are you going to do when times are bad AND HAVE to pay more taxes with fewer services?

[aceventura3]

You guys talk about tax cuts, but not government spending. You talk about the rich benefiting from tax cuts, but you don't explain how government taking from one person and giving to another creates wealth for poor people. I give clear example how people investing does create wealth. Productivity gains is the long-term solution to maintaining and improving quality of life (as has been true since the dawn of time). Government spending is a drain on productivity, not a help. Money in the hand of people willing to invest in the future helps everyone. If you can show I am wrong I will eat my words and apologize for being an arrogant SOB.

[james t kirk]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You guys talk about tax cuts, but not government spending. You talk about the rich benefiting from tax cuts, but you don't explain how government taking from one person and giving to another creates wealth for poor people. I give clear example how people investing does create wealth. Productivity gains is the long-term solution to maintaining and improving quality of life (as has been true since the dawn of time). Government spending is a drain on productivity, not a help. Money in the hand of people willing to invest in the future helps everyone. If you can show I am wrong I will eat my words and apologize for being an arrogant SOB.

I personally don't care how the USA gets its financial house in order, the only thing is, you'd better do it soon cause the chickens are coming home to roost.

When Bushie took over the US debt was 4.9 trillion dollars. Now, 6 years later, your debt is 8.2 billion dollars. It doesn't take a mezmo to figure out that that is an unsustainable path.

The first step in controlling the DEBT will be to balance the US federal budget, stop borrowing money to finance day to day operations. You can do it one of three ways.

1. Cut Spending across the board by 25%, in all departments, including the precious defence budget.

2. Increase taxes.

3. A combination of both.

To me, Number 3 seems the most logical, so like it or not, some form of tax increase has to be in the cards.

The most logical is a national sales tax. Canada has a 7% G.S.T. (Goods and Services Tax) on just about EVERYTHING you buy, except some groceries. It works. It's hated, but it works. Why? Cause it's hard to beat. Lots of rich dudes beat the income tax and pay nothing. Lots of poor people pay nothing. But the GST is almost as hard to beat as is property tax. The more you buy, the more you pay. All other G-7 nations have something similar.

Only the US does not.

Americans think that they are over taxed, but they are not. The truth of the matter is that you pay less tax than any G-8 nation.

You think that this allows you more money to consume or save with. Ironically, due to your debt, when the bubble does pop, your money is going to suffer and you will actually have less.

You can't keep paying more and more money in just interest every year. It just doesn't work that way.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by james t kirk

When Bushie took over the US debt was 4.9 trillion dollars. Now, 6 years later, your debt is 8.2 billion dollars. It doesn't take a mezmo to figure out that that is an unsustainable path.

You can not look at debt in a vacuum. The national debt as a percentage of national wealth is about the same has it has been over the last 50 years. Budget deficit spending as a percentage of national income, GNP, is about the same has it has been over the last 50 years.

What is getting worse is government spending as a percent of GNP. Government is growing faster than the economy. Government growth has to stop.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You guys talk about tax cuts, but not government spending. You talk about the rich benefiting from tax cuts, but you don't explain how government taking from one person and giving to another creates wealth for poor people. I give clear example how people investing does create wealth. Productivity gains is the long-term solution to maintaining and improving quality of life (as has been true since the dawn of time). Government spending is a drain on productivity, not a help. Money in the hand of people willing to invest in the future helps everyone. If you can show I am wrong I will eat my words and apologize for being an arrogant SOB.

I have talked about Small Business loans, student loans and so on and I have talked about government waste and handouts to big companies (which is bullshit when they pay their CEO's 1000 times more than their hourly workers... that is bullshit, I cannot understand anyone defending it).... I just get tired of repeating myself in every thread.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by pan6467

I have talked about Small Business loans, student loans...

Very few small business need the SBA program for start-up. In most cases banks would loan the money anyway when a person can meet the conditions for an SBA loan. And, the SBA program pretty much just shifts the risk of giving the loan from the bank to the government. The program actually enrichs big banks more than it does small business owners. The small business owner puts business and personal assets on the line, the bank nothing, and they get a guarnateed return. The program is smoke and mirrors, it has no real value and adds no value to the business owner. It just requires more paperwork, and creates jobs for SBA employees. Just like in Vegas, you want to be the house. In the SBA program you want to be the bank.

People went to college before the student loan programs and would continue going if the program stopped. People generally pay market rates for the loans anyway, so what is the point of it being in a government program. The private sector can handle student loans. A teenager in college can get credit cards, no government. A teenager can get a car loan, no government. You don'r think they could get a student loan with no government?

Also, you can't "give" someone an education. They have to earn it, they have to work for it. You create the illusion that all government has to do is tax the rich and "give" poor people an education and everything will be fine. at some point the people who want it, have to put in an effort. They have to make sacrifices. they have to show they want it, they have to prove it is important.

Also, just because you use key word over and over doesn't mean you are supporting your argument. I love a good debate, all I look for is substance and logic. Saying we can tax the rich and give to the poor means virtually nothing to me, because it doesn't work.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You guys talk about tax cuts, but not government spending.

Read my post again. I specifically talk about government spending many times.

You talk about the rich benefiting from tax cuts, but you don't explain how government taking from one person and giving to another creates wealth for poor people.

Nor do we need to. We are not talking about having the government steal from the rich and give to the poor. We are talking about having the government make the rich pay their fair share. They have more money, they enjoy more benefits of the american capitalism system, they should pay more into the system. This is not a tough concept. But as it is, we keep giving tax cuts to the rich, while forcing the middle class to shoulder the burden. That's ridiculous. Works out great for the millionaires, but not so well for the majority of the people.

I give clear example how people investing does create wealth. Productivity gains is the long-term solution to maintaining and improving quality of life (as has been true since the dawn of time). Government spending is a drain on productivity, not a help. Money in the hand of people willing to invest in the future helps everyone. If you can show I am wrong I will eat my words and apologize for being an arrogant SOB.

Number one that was not an example. That was a theory. Let's call it what it is. And it's a theory that you don't bother backing up with any sources, credible or not. And the theory is dead wrong. If government spending is a drain on productivity, why does productivity go up in times of war, when the government is spending lots of money on arms?

but let's take your ideas to the logical conclusion - let's say the government stops spending money on anything but defense and running itself (power bill for congress, etc). No more spending for roads. We'll make 'em all toll roads (worked great for Chicago right? Those are just silky smooth roads right?) Let's cut government spending on the agriculture industry. For example, no more meat inspections. Of course, some people will die from contaminated meat, but at least we're saving money right?


Just a couple of examples of why government spending is necessary. Of course, whining that the government is too big is very popular for the "conservatives" (who then come in, cut social programs, and spend just as much, and more, on attacking innocent countries, therefore not saving a dime anyway). But they fail to point out what smaller government really means.

And tax cuts are very popular, and irresponsible, ways for a politician to gain favor with the voters. Look how well it worked for Minnesota. Everyone got tax refund checks, then suddenly they were millions in the hole. Looks pretty stupid in hindsight doesn't it.

And the federal government's budget is in terrible shape - at least when Minnesota did it their budget was reasonably healthy. The government cannot afford to cut income, especially when its spending is soaring out of control.

I agree that the government spends entirely too much, but that does not mean that the solution is to cut income. That's just senseless.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Very few small business need the SBA program for start-up. In most cases banks would loan the money anyway when a person can meet the conditions for an SBA loan. And, the SBA program pretty much just shifts the risk of giving the loan from the bank to the government. The program actually enrichs big banks more than it does small business owners. The small business owner puts business and personal assets on the line, the bank nothing, and they get a guarnateed return. The program is smoke and mirrors, it has no real value and adds no value to the business owner. It just requires more paperwork, and creates jobs for SBA employees. Just like in Vegas, you want to be the house. In the SBA program you want to be the bank.

People went to college before the student loan programs and would continue going if the program stopped. People generally pay market rates for the loans anyway, so what is the point of it being in a government program. The private sector can handle student loans. A teenager in college can get credit cards, no government. A teenager can get a car loan, no government. You don'r think they could get a student loan with no government?

Also, you can't "give" someone an education. They have to earn it, they have to work for it. You create the illusion that all government has to do is tax the rich and "give" poor people an education and everything will be fine. at some point the people who want it, have to put in an effort. They have to make sacrifices. they have to show they want it, they have to prove it is important.

Also, just because you use key word over and over doesn't mean you are supporting your argument. I love a good debate, all I look for is substance and logic. Saying we can tax the rich and give to the poor means virtually nothing to me, because it doesn't work.

Yet Corporate welfare and the tax cuts to where fortune 500 companies pay nothing, the farm aid to billionaires abusing the system, ATPs..... yeah FREE FUCKING TAX DOLLARS TO THE RICH AND BIG BUSINESS BUT BLAME AND CUT THE PROGRAMS THAT HELP THE POOR...... makes sense.

Tax cuts for the rich and Free money for the rich and hopefully it'll trickle down..... I love that word "TRICKLE"....... lol it means slow and barely there.

But the GOP Neocons love Trickle down and cutting social programs while Sen. Spector gives his aides spouse MILLIONS of our tax dollars. While government gives BILLIONS to billion dollar corporations that pay their workers shit but pay their CEO's Millions not to mention their perks.

You and I disagree wayyyyyyyy too much and I get too emotional to talk about this because when you research it you see the rich getting fucking government money handed to them on silver platters and the poor blamed and having the programs that help them cut.

And people like you either buy into the bullshit or like blaming the poor and truly don't give a damn as long as you have yours. Because I have mentioned the above "perks" to the rich and all you and the neocons do is make excuses. It's ok to cut the services to the poor but don't touch the rich's perks.... yet the same arguments you have for the cutting of the poor's help could very well apply to the rich.... but NOOOOOOOOOO that can't happen. The money the rich get supposedly goes into the economy to help the poor....... lol like helping the poor with loans and education would hurt the economy.

I can't argue this because there's no meeting point. You refuse to acknowledge the programs to the rich need cut, and that the poor deserve shit.

[aceventura3]

Originally Posted by shakran

We are not talking about having the government steal from the rich and give to the poor. We are talking about having the government make the rich pay their fair share. They have more money, they enjoy more benefits of the american capitalism system, they should pay more into the system. This is not a tough concept. But as it is, we keep giving tax cuts to the rich, while forcing the middle class to shoulder the burden. That's ridiculous. Works out great for the millionaires, but not so well for the majority of the people.

Taxing income from labor and savings is not fair in my opinion. I suggest taxing consumption. A billionaire can show little or no income, but have a billionaire lifstyle. Taxing consumption addresses many problems. To me the real issue is not tax cuts but developing the most effecient way to tax.

Perhaps it is not you, but hearing about how the tax cuts are wrong over and over is making me delirious especially given what happens when excessive tax rates are lowered to more reasonable levels.

If government spending is a drain on productivity, why does productivity go up in times of war, when the government is spending lots of money on arms?

Because government employs labor (soldiers) at little costs. Resource directed towrd the "war machine" negatively affects the quality of life. During WWII we had all kinds of shortages of goods and services. Quality of life does not improve during times when war consumes major portions of an economy. I could write a report on that and cite sources, but do I really need to?

..but let's take your ideas to the logical conclusion - let's say the government stops spending money on anything but defense and running itself (power bill for congress, etc). No more spending for roads. We'll make 'em all toll roads (worked great for Chicago right? Those are just silky smooth roads right?) Let's cut government spending on the agriculture industry. For example, no more meat inspections. Of course, some people will die from contaminated meat, but at least we're saving money right?

We can look at markets that have developed without significant government involvment, what happens? The market finds a way to regulate itself. I am not an anarchist but there is a really, really long road between what we have today and a country where government is only involved in defense. Personally I beleive local and state government should do many of the things we expect from the federal government.

Just a couple of examples of why government spending is necessary. Of course, whining that the government is too big is very popular for the "conservatives" (who then come in, cut social programs, and spend just as much, and more, on attacking innocent countries, therefore not saving a dime anyway). But they fail to point out what smaller government really means.

Here is what it means. You don't send money to Washington and then have them send some of it back. No Pork. Zero based budgets. Cost benefit analysis for programs anually. Sunset provisions. Part-time law makers. Accountability, I can have lunch with my local school board president. I can not meet with the head of education at the federal level, lobbiests can. If my school board does something stupid, they hear about it. If they do something stupid in Washington, they blame someone else. There is no accountability for most federal government programs. Does FEMA come to mind?

And tax cuts are very popular, and irresponsible, ways for a politician to gain favor with the voters. Look how well it worked for Minnesota. Everyone got tax refund checks, then suddenly they were millions in the hole. Looks pretty stupid in hindsight doesn't it.

Government spending acounts for $1 out of every $5 in our economy. How big do you want government? Pork is a bigger problem than tax cuts, don't you agree?

I agree that the government spends entirely too much, but that does not mean that the solution is to cut income. That's just senseless.

Government income is up after the tax cuts, not down. Check the CBO website.

[aswo]

Wow that was the most intelligent and coherent post i have read on this board from a libertarian/conservative point of view thank you ace