CNBC Announces Maria's Puff Interview of Resident Bush - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 10-11-2007, 11:30 AM

The CNBC intro proclaims that their star "reporter", Maria Baritoromo, is at the White House, about to intervew (celebrate ?i??) Bush's claim that his admin. has reduced deficit spending, "DOWN" to just $160 billion per year....

I'm betting that Maria won't ask Bush, "Mr. President, given that, just before your took office in 2001, the total increase in US Treasury debt in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2000, was just $18 billion....how are you able to make a sincere claim to the American people, that you have reigned in deficit spending, when the actual Treasury debt has increased over $500 billion, in less than the last 12 months?

I think that

she won't ask click to show

aceventura3 · 10-11-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I'm betting that Maria won't ask Bush, "Mr. President, given that, just before your took office in 2001, the total increase in US Treasury debt in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2000, was just $18 billion....how are you able to make a sincere claim to the American people, that you have reigned in deficit spending, when the actual Treasury debt has increased over $500 billion, in less than the last 12 months?

Because some of that debt increase was due to non-discretionary spending.

Because deficit spending is different from total debt. deficit spending is still deficit spending, surplus is needed to reduce the total debt.

Because total economy growth was greater on a percentage bases than the percentage growth of the total debt.

Because the tax cuts helped take us from negative economic growth to positive economic growth, and the long-term affects of those tax cuts are still stimulating the economy.

P.S. Welcome back Host.

Infinite_Loser · 10-11-2007, 01:30 PM

The answer here is simple. The Bush administration frequently forecasts the yearly deficit to be some arbitrarily high number. This way they're able to claim a moral victory when the deficit comes in at lower than what they estimated, even though deficit spending has increased every year since 2001.

behindalens · 10-11-2007, 06:28 PM

Expect hard hitting questions such as "how do you deal with the stress from criticism" to be submitted days in advance so Bush can fail at his rehearsed response.

host · 10-12-2007, 09:51 AM

Thank you, ace....

Here is the actual interview...broadcast yesterday on CNBC

Part I video
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=555710464&play=1

Thurs. Oct. 11 2007 | 4:02 PM[07:24]
President George Bush discussing the decline in the U.S. deficit, with CNBC's Maria Bartiromo

Part II Video
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=555710486&play=1

...and the only true statement in the following, Bush "tribute piece", is highlighted in bold text...(in Clinton's era, new debt dropped to $18 billion annually, there was never a surplus....)

Quote:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...XO-5AD8S79O000
US Budget Deficit Drops to 5-Year Low

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER – 19 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration reported Thursday that the federal budget deficit fell to $162.8 billion in the just-completed budget year, the lowest amount of red ink in five years.

The administration credited the president's tax cuts for helping generate record-breaking revenues but warned of an approaching "fiscal train wreck" unless Congress deals with unsustainable growth in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

President Bush, appearing with his economic team to trumpet the news, noted that the deficit turned out to be $81 billion lower than it was projected to be in February. He said the deficit represents 1.2 percent of gross domestic product — less than the average of the last 40 years.

"By keeping taxes low we can grow the economy, and by working with Congress to set priorities we can be fiscally responsible and we can head toward balance," Bush said after the meeting across the street from the White House. "And that's exactly where we're headed."

The deficit for the 2007 budget year that ended on Sept. 30 was 34.4 percent lower than the $248.2 billion deficit recorded in 2006, reflecting faster growth in revenues than in government spending.

Administration officials said the government was on track to accomplish Bush's goal of eliminating the deficit by 2012. But Democrats said the improvement in the deficit this year did not mask the fact that Bush's economic policies transformed the budget surpluses of the Clinton years into record deficits and an unprecedented increase in the national debt.

The debate over the president's signature tax cuts and their affect on the economy are certain to be played out in the coming presidential campaign. Republican candidates are vowing to make permanent Bush's tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of 2010; Democrats want to roll back the tax cuts received by the wealthiest taxpayers.

Both revenues and spending climbed to record levels in 2007. Spending rose by 2.8 percent to $2.73 trillion while revenues rose by a faster 6.7 percent to a record $2.57 trillion, a gain the administration attributed to the economic stimulus from the president's tax cuts.

"This year's budget results further demonstrate how the president's tax relief, combined with spending discipline, has helped promote a sustained economic expansion, which led to revenue growth and resulted in a declining deficit," said White House budget director Jim Nussle.

But administration officials said while the short-term budget deficit was improving, greater efforts were needed to deal with the budgetary pressures that will arise in future years with the approaching retirement of 78 million baby boomers.

"For the sake of our children and grandchildren, Congress should begin to take action to prevent this fiscal train wreck," Nussle said in a statement accompanying the budget figures.

<h3>Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said that Bush would "go down in history as the most fiscally irresponsible president ever. The fact is that the nation's debt has exploded on his watch — rising by $3 trillion since 2001, to $9 trillion today."</h3>

Bush recently signed into law a measure increasing the government's borrowing ceiling to $9.815 trillion. It was the fifth debt increase of Bush's presidency. The national debt is the accumulation of the annual deficits.

During the Clinton administration, the federal budget ran a surplus for four consecutive years, something that had not been accomplished for seven decades.

While there were projections that the budget would run up surpluses of $5.6 trillion over the next decade, the bursting of the stock market bubble in 2000, the recession that followed in 2001 and the terrorist attacks, which led to increased military spending to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, pushed the country back into deficit spending.

For 2007, defense spending, including war costs, totaled $529.9 billion, up 6.1 percent from 2006, an increase that outpaced the 2.8 percent rise in overall spending. Paying interest on the national debt also outpaced overall spending growth, rising by 5.9 percent to total $430 billion, making it the fourth-largest spending category.

While the administration contends that Bush's first-term tax cuts helped jump-start economic growth and are contributing to record revenues currently, Democrats dispute that view, saying the tax breaks were tilted to the wealthy and actually have contributed to the record deficits.

The deficit hit an all-time high in dollar terms of $413 billion in 2004 and has been coming down since.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that the deficit will improve further in the 2008 budget year, which began on Oct. 1, projecting a decline to $155 billion before the imbalance starts to rise again in 2009.

<br><p>

...as the debt info in the thread OP clearly shows...not only is the rate of new debt accumulation not lessening, it actually has increased, vs. the amount of last year. It is easy to point to budget deficit reduction, as Bush did, when war expenditures are deliberately not budgeted....they are simply categorized as "off-budget", "supplemental" appropriations that increase the debt each year by hundreds of billions of dollars. It's a nice trick, and the only way to circumvent the untruths is to compare the amount of new debt actually tabulated by the US Treasury....$540 billion since Oct. 1, 2006. vs. just
$18 billion between Oct. 1, 1999 and Sept. 30, 2000....before Bush tax cuts and unsustainably expensive, "war on terror". He can try to hide the fiscal ruin he is causing, but it should be an impeachable offense to lie and to manipulate, so blatantly.

ratbastid · 10-12-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

The administration credited the president's tax cuts for helping generate record-breaking revenues

I don't have an MBA or anything, but that just doesn't follow. How do they tie that apple to that orange, exactly?

aceventura3 · 10-15-2007, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I don't have an MBA or anything, but that just doesn't follow. How do they tie that apple to that orange, exactly?

The federal government is collecting more tax dollars than at any other time in our history. They are also spending more. Increased tax dollars collected are related to a number of factors, one being general economic growth. The reason people make an issue of increased tax dollars being collected is to illustrate how tax rate cuts can in fact not only stimulate the economy but to actually lead to more taxes being collected.

When tax rates are too high, people are going to do things to avoid paying the higher tax rate. Ideally, there is a perfect tax rate somewhere between 100% and 0% of income where there is equilibrium and government will maximize tax collection on income or any other form of taxation.

Our government is currently acting like a household that spends more money than they make (deficit spending) adding to total debt. Short of printing money to eliminate the debt, the debt won't be reduced until the government starts creating budget surpluses. The Clinton administration had achieved this, but it was rally an illusion because of social security and as Host points out off budget items.

This issue is bigger the one President and right now people want to blame Bush, but the reality is that it is more complicated than that. But blaming Bush makes good headlines and is good for political talk shows, but ignores the real issues we face.

host · 10-15-2007, 07:03 AM

ace....you and I had this same discussion exactly a year ago, and I obviously did not get through to you:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...&highlight=mew

...you're posting the same opinion now...it flies in the face of the facts....Bush's tax policies transferred the revenue that formerly mitigated a higher deficit, back into the pockets of those who formerly paid the the highest progressive tax rate...the wealthiest ten percent who already owned 70 percent of all assets in the US....and another year of data is in....it supports my argument:

2000 ....US is deficit free....candidate Bush is campaigning to return "the budget surplus" to the taxpayers:

<a href="http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:LK4mcAFfc4cJ:www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf+2005+revenue+tax+revenue&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7#2">CBO Data html</a>

From: Page 3..."Revenues by Major Source, 1962 to 2006"

Individual Income Tax revenue - 2000 ----- 2003 ----- 2006

........(in billions of $'s) ......... 1,004.5 .. 793.7 .. 1,043.9

Corporate Income Tax Revenue

........(in billions of $'s) ............ 207.3 ... 131.8 ... 353.9

Social Insurance Tax Revenue

........(in billions of $'s) ............ 652.9 ... 713.0 ... 837.8

From: Page 4... "Revenues by Major Source, 1962 to 2006"

(Percentage of gross domestic product)
Individual Income taxes... 2000= 10.3 percent 2003= 7.3 percent 2006= 8.0 percent

From: Page 11.. "Surpluses, Deficits, Debt, and Related Series, 1962 to 2006"

Budget Deficit or Surplus:

........(in billions of $'s) - 2000 ----- 2003 ----- 2006

.................................. +236.0 ... -378.0 ... -248.0

ace, in 2000, Social Security (SSI) taxes collected were $652.9 billion, and the $236 billion "surplus in 2000, was that money...the surplus in SSI taxes vs. payments to recipients.
In 2006, SSI taxes collected were $837.8 billion.... Bush's budget ran a deficit of $248 billion, plus....all of the SSI surplus of 2006. The amount of that 2006 SSI surplus was part of the $500 billion US Treasury Debt increase of 2006...it is carried on the books as "debt held by the public".

<h3>Personal Income tax revenue, when adjusted for inflation, has actually decreased since 2000...and the 2006 deficit was advertised to be $248 billion....only because the entire 2006 SSI surplus was borrowed and spent, but.... not counted as part of the 2006 deficit, and because of a temporary, windfall increase in corporate income tax revenue, which is probably over, after 2007.</h3>

Bush and the republican congress...for six years, transferred the tax burden from the top ten percent, to a massively increased debt burden to the other 90 percent, who own just 30 percent of the country's total wealth. Real populists...these "folks" you advocate for....ace!

aceventura3 · 10-15-2007, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace....you and I had this same discussion exactly a year ago, and I obviously did not get through to you:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...&highlight=mew

You may be correct, but your statement is vague. I made several posts in that thread and expressed some opinions, ask questions and presented some facts. Maybe you did get through to me on something.

Quote:

...you're posting the same opinion now...it flies in the face of the facts....

The vagueness continues. What did I write that flies in the face of facts?

Quote:

Bush's tax policies transferred the revenue that formerly mitigated a higher deficit, back into the pockets of those who formerly paid the the highest progressive tax rate...the wealthiest ten percent who already owned 70 percent of all assets in the US....and another year of data is in....it supports my argument:

ace, in 2000, Social Security (SSI) taxes collected were $652.9 billion, and the $236 billion "surplus in 2000, was that money...the surplus in SSI taxes vs. payments to recipients.
In 2006, SSI taxes collected were $837.8 billion.... Bush's budget ran a deficit of $248 billion, plus....all of the SSI surplus of 2006. The amount of that 2006 SSI surplus was part of the $500 billion US Treasury Debt increase of 2006...it is carried on the books as "debt held by the public".

I do not dispute the numbers you posted. I don't dispute spending being out of control. I don't dispute there was a surplus during the Clinton administration.

I don't even dispute your understanding of SSI being in surplus. However, looking at Social Security as being in surplus without taking into consideration the long-term liability being created is an error in my opinion. I see Social Security as the biggest fiscal crisis facing this nation because future liabilities will consume bigger and bigger shares of our national income. To measure the inflows today against the outflows to day is an error.

The Bush deficit, if you agree is made up of three components (discretionary spending, non-discretionary, spending, off-budget spending) and then compared to tax collections, you have to then consider what would have happened to the deficit assuming no tax cuts for your argument to make sense that the tax cuts are the reason for the deficit. I don't see how deficit spending could have been avoided with or without the tax cuts. Then add in the costs of the war and deficit spending would be even worse with or without the tax cuts. But history shows temporary deficts are generally not a long term problem. The SS problem is different.

Regardless of the tax cuts, taxes collected (if you agree there is a correlation to GDP, all other things being equal), would have shown a peak in 2000 during the "dot com bubble bursting" and the economy going into recession. Both events where triggered before Bush took office. Assuming no Bush tax cuts, taxes collected would have declined. No one with specificity can give exact numbers on the impact of the Bush tax cuts, good or bad. However, based on the numbers you posted, after the recession tax dollars collect went up, the economy grew, jobs were created, incomes increased. All evidence of good things resulting from the tax cuts.

Quote:

Bush and the republican congress...for six years, transferred the tax burden from the top ten percent, to a massively increased debt burden to the other 90 percent, who own just 30 percent of the country's total wealth. Real populists...these "folks" you advocate for....ace!

I know how you love IBD, but you can verify the numbers against your own source, but your comment above is misleading.

Quote:

In 2005, the latest full year for data, the top 1% of earners accounted for 21.2% of all income, but paid 39.4% of all federal taxes. The top 5% earned 35.8% of all income and paid 60% of the taxes. That's right: The top 5% paid more in income taxes than the remaining 95% combined.

Quote:

The bottom 50% in income in the U.S. — including, by definition, half of those who are middle class — paid just 3% of all income taxes in 2005. That's right: The top 50% in income paid 97%.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...76821557506429

host · 10-15-2007, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You may be correct, but your statement is vague. I made several posts in that thread and expressed some opinions, ask questions and presented some facts. Maybe you did get through to me on something.

The vagueness continues. What did I write that flies in the face of facts?

I do not dispute the numbers you posted. I don't dispute spending being out of control. I don't dispute there was a surplus during the Clinton administration.

I don't even dispute your understanding of SSI being in surplus. However, looking at Social Security as being in surplus without taking into consideration the long-term liability being created is an error in my opinion. I see Social Security as the biggest fiscal crisis facing this nation because future liabilities will consume bigger and bigger shares of our national income. To measure the inflows today against the outflows to day is an error.

The Bush deficit, if you agree is made up of three components (discretionary spending, non-discretionary, spending, off-budget spending) and then compared to tax collections, you have to then consider what would have happened to the deficit assuming no tax cuts for your argument to make sense that the tax cuts are the reason for the deficit. I don't see how deficit spending could have been avoided with or without the tax cuts. Then add in the costs of the war and deficit spending would be even worse with or without the tax cuts. But history shows temporary deficts are generally not a long term problem. The SS problem is different.

Regardless of the tax cuts, taxes collected (if you agree there is a correlation to GDP, all other things being equal), would have shown a peak in 2000 during the "dot com bubble bursting" and the economy going into recession. Both events where triggered before Bush took office. Assuming no Bush tax cuts, taxes collected would have declined. No one with specificity can give exact numbers on the impact of the Bush tax cuts, good or bad. However, based on the numbers you posted, after the recession tax dollars collect went up, the economy grew, jobs were created, incomes increased. All evidence of good things resulting from the tax cuts.

I know how you love IBD, but you can verify the numbers against your own source, but your comment above is misleading.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...76821557506429

ace...there is certainly a difference between the wealth owned by a household, and annual income. If a household owned a billion dollars of real estate....expenses to carry the properties could conceivably be higher than the income from the property, in any given year....but that household would still own assets of a billion dollars.

I've documented....in at least ten posts....that the bottom 50 percent of the US population owns just 2-1/2 percent of total US assets....yet you posted that they pay 3 percent of the taxes. The top ten percent own 70 percent of total US wealth.....and the top one percent owns 30 percent of total wealth.

You posted:

Quote:

.....The top 5% earned 35.8% of all income and paid 60% of the taxes......

...that top 5 percent owns at least 35.8 percent of total US wealth....probably more than 50 percent of total wealth. If the military budget is over $500 billion, annually....who do you think the military is protecting? You might say all of us....but the bottom 50 percent own almost none of the total US wealth. I documented, in the "How do you answer a soldier's..." thread, that the "freedoms" aren't protected, respected, or guaranteed, and that there are two sets of laws and financial rules in the US....one for the elite...much more lenient...than the other set for most of us....

So...who should pay for the costs of defense....the folks who have nothing, and work hand to mouth for wages....subject to a stringent and unforgiving set of financial and legal rules and penalties....and..if they are arrested, are mostly dependent on underfunded legal aid lawyers to represent them in court, if they are fortunate enough to be allowed access to regular criminal courts...(it took US citizen Jose Padilla two years to get "permission" to speak to a defense attorney...)...or should defense costs be paid primarily by the elite....the Mitt Riomneys with $250 million fortunes and 5 sons who support the Iraq war, but are working to "change things at home"....by campaigning to help get their daddy elected president....so he can transfer even more wealth, power, and privilege, from most of us....to the top ten percent....

The bottom 50 percent can, with a few hours notice, pack up most of what they actually own, and be off in their mortgage automobile, towards Canada, Mexico, or say...an inland area next to a mjor US military base....if there was a threat of an attack on the US mainland.....The sons/daughters of the bottom 50 percent who serve in the military would be ordered to defend the coastal districts that feature the real estate and business holdings of the top ten percent.....

ace....Bush's economic miracle have boosted personal income tax revenue less than $50 billion, in just six years.....personal income taxes, as a percentage of GDP...have dropped from 10.3 percent in 2000...to just 8 percent, in 2006.

Note in the data that I posted, that the recession that you point to as an excuse to give Bush a "pass"....never resulted in a reduction in SSI revenue collected....since it could not be cut by Bush. Since SSI collection stopped at annaul income levels above $100,000....the fact that SSI revenue collection never declined....supports my contention that income during the early 00's recession, did not decline as steeply as you believe.

The Bush tax cuts are responsible for a significant portion of the deficit increase in the Bush years....and the tax cuts shifted significant wealth to those who already owned 70 percent of everything, and burdened the bottom 50 percent, via their future share of the responsibility for a $9 trillion debt, instead of a $5.65 trilion debt ....

The job growth in the Bush years was less than half the number of jobs created in the comparable Clinton period...it was not high enough to cover new entires into the labor market.

...and ace....SSI would not be a burden for many, many years...if the federal government had not treated those collections as general revenue. If the yearly surplus collected was transferred to the SSA and invested as it's managers saw fit...instead of at an average return of 5-1/2 percent annually in special T-Bills.....as SSA is forced by the government to do....

All of that revenue is paid by employees and employers...and all income above $100,000 per year is exempted from the SSI levy. Who benefits most from the investment restrictions on the SSI trust fund, the use of the money collected as genreal revenue...and the exemption of the SSI levy on income above $100, 000...ace? The bottom 50 percent experience a 7-3/4 percent FICA/Medicare tax on their entire earnings, ace.....the top income earners pay those taxes on a much smaller percentage of earnings....

Your mindset will culminate in the top ten percent owning 80 to 90 percent of total wealth....Bush policies have accelerated that trend. If the reaction to that is not violent, a Hugo Chavez "like" figure will rise to lead a revolt against the wealth elite....and you will pronbably label him as "crzay", a communist, and or a criminal. We can have a country more like Denmark or France....or one like Mexico, ace.....it all depends on whether we support leaders like Reagan and the Bushes, or like John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich. Yhe data doesn't lie....Bush's tax policy have benefited those who needed it the least, but could afford to buy it and make it happen.....

aceventura3 · 10-15-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace...there is certainly a difference between the wealth owned by a household, and annual income. If a household owned a billion dollars of real estate....expenses to carry the properties could conceivably be higher than the income from the property, in any given year....but that household would still own assets of a billion dollars.

I've documented....in at least ten posts....that the bottom 50 percent of the US population owns just 2-1/2 percent of total US assets....yet you posted that they pay 3 percent of the taxes. The top ten percent own 70 percent of total US wealth.....and the top one percent owns 30 percent of total wealth.

The data I posted was about income taxes paid. i agree there is a difference between taxes paid and net worth.

I don't doubt that the bottom 50% of the US population owns just 2.5% of the wealth. However, that may be deserving of more in depth analysis prior to drawing conclusions. For example net worth peaks when a person is in or near retirement for most people. A 20 year-old generally has little or no net worth compared to people who are in their 40's, 50's and 60's. I also question the government policies in place that actually prevent or discourage people from accumulating wealth. For example the Children Health Care Bill veto'd by Bush, in one case (in Texas) there is an asset test of $10,000. If you own more than that you may be disqualified from the program, costing your family according to DC's numbers up to $12,000 per year. Reasonable people faced with that may avoid accumulating $10,000+ in assets. In some cases a senior citizen may be faced with needing to show little in the form of assets to qualify for some assisted living programs. Marginal tax rates on phase out programs may cause some hard working middle class people to avoid exceptional high income years, i.e. a factory worker working extensive overtime at 1.5 or 2 times their normal rate. After taxes and other potential phase outs, like the loss of the child tax credit or mortgage deduction they may face a marginal rate of well over 50% given all taxes.

Quote:

You posted:

...that top 5 percent owns at least 35.8 percent of total US wealth....probably more than 50 percent of total wealth. If the military budget is over $500 billion, annually....who do you think the military is protecting? You might say all of us....but the bottom 50 percent own almost none of the total US wealth. I documented, in the "How do you answer a soldier's..." thread, that the "freedoms" aren't protected, respected, or guaranteed, and that there are two sets of laws and financial rules in the US....one for the elite...much more lenient...than the other set for most of us....
So...who should pay for the costs of defense....the folks who have nothing, and work hand to mouth for wages....subject to a stringent and unforgiving set of financial and legal rules and penalties....and..if they are arrested, are mostly dependent on underfunded legal aid lawyers to represent them in court, if they are fortunate enough to be allowed access to regular criminal courts...(it took US citizen Jose Padilla two years to get "permission" to speak to a defense attorney...)...or should defense costs be paid primarily by the elite....the Mitt Riomneys with $250 million fortunes and 5 sons who support the Iraq war, but are working to "change things at home"....by campaigning to help get their daddy elected president....so he can transfer even more wealth, power, and privilege, from most of us....to the top ten percent....

wealth is one thing the freedom to earn wealth or not earn wealth is something else. I think our military is defending our freedoms, and I consider that more important than wealth.

Quote:

The bottom 50 percent can, with a few hours notice, pack up most of what they actually own, and be off in their mortgage automobile, towards Canada, Mexico, or say...an inland area next to a mjor US military base....if there was a threat of an attack on the US mainland.....The sons/daughters of the bottom 50 percent who serve in the military would be ordered to defend the coastal districts that feature the real estate and business holdings of the top ten percent.....

That was not true for Jewish people in Germany during WWII. The wealth they had was taken. Their freedom was taken and millions lost their lives. A tyrannical government can easily take a person's assets. In the case in the US, the IRS has had the power to take a person's wealth. For example, Joe Louis was forced into near bankruptcy unfairly because of the IRS, and it has happened to many others.

Quote:

ace....Bush's economic miracle have boosted personal income tax revenue less than $50 billion, in just six years.....personal income taxes, as a percentage of GDP...have dropped from 10.3 percent in 2000...to just 8 percent, in 2006.

I see that as a positive. People are keeping more of their own money. Economic growth indicates they are spending and reinvesting that money.

Quote:

Note in the data tyhat I posted, that the recession that you point to as an excuse to give Bush a "pass"....never resulted in a reduction in SSI revenue collected....since it could not be cut by Bush. Since SSI collection stopped at annaul income levels above

Well, don't we need to seperate taxes collected from income and capital gains taxes. During the dot com boom and bust, a lot of income was in the form of capital gains. People who had massive returns on investments in technology. Those gains dried up fast.

Quote:

ned....supports my contention that income during the early 00's recession, did not decline as steeply as you believe.

You see you made a false assumption. There is income from wages, income from savings and income from investments on an individual level. True analysis needs to break that data down.

Quote:

The Bush tax cuts are responsible for a significant portion of the deficit increase in the Bush years....and the tax cuts shifted significant wealth to those who already owned 70 percent of everything, and burdened the bottom 50 percent, via their future share of the responsibility for a $9 trillion debt, instead of a $5.65 trilion debt ....

The child tax credit was pretty real for non-wealthy people. At some income levels not only do the workingpoor pay no income tax, but from credits like the EIC and Child Tax Credit, they get money back.

Quote:

The job growth in the Bush years was less than half the number of jobs created in the comparable Clinton period...it was not high enough to cover new entires into the labor market.

Bush and Clinton had different economic climates to deal with. Who knows what would have been different if anything if Bush had Clinton's economic climate and vis versa.

Quote:

...and ace....SSI would not be a burden for many, many years...if the federal government had not treated those collections as general revenue. If the yearly surplus collected was transferred to the SSA and invested as it's managers saw fit...instead of at an average return of 5-1/2 percent annually in special T-Bills.....as SSA is forced by the government to do....

Can we agree that SS is broken, and needs to be fixed?

Quote:

All of that revenue is paid by employees and employers...and all income above $100,000 per year is exempted from the SSI levy. Who benefits most from the investment restrictions on the SSI trust fund, the use of the money collected as genreal revenue...and the exemption of the SSI levy on income above $100, 000...ace? The bottom 50 percent experience a 7-3/4 percent FICA/Medicare tax on their entire earnings, ace.....the top income earners pay those taxes on a much smaller percentage of earnings....

Actually the total is 15.5% adding in what the employer pays. Imagine if young person had 15.5% going in to investments for 45+ years, in an account in their name, that they could pass on to their children.

Otherwise you are correct, but remember there is a cap on social security income that a person can collect.

Quote:

Your mindset will culminate in the top ten percent owning 80 to 90 percent of total wealth....Bush policies have accelerated that trend. If the reaction to that is not violent, a Hugo Chavez "like" figure will rise to lead a revolt against the wealth elite....and you will pronbably label him as "crzay", a communist, and or a criminal. We can have a country more like Denmark or France....or one like Mexico, ace.....it all depends on whether we support leaders like Reagan and the Bushes, or like John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich. Yhe data doesn't lie....Bush's tax policy have benefited those who needed it the least, but could afford to buy it and make it happen.....

My mind set says that if everyone had more of their own money, they would manage that money better than the government has been doing. Poor people become rich through hard work, savings and investing. We should not tax those things, we should tax consumption. If you did that then you really would hit the rich hard.

10-11-2007, 11:30 AM	#1 (permalink)
host Banned	CNBC Announces Maria's Puff Interview of Resident Bush The CNBC intro proclaims that their star "reporter", Maria Baritoromo, is at the White House, about to intervew (celebrate ?i??) Bush's claim that his admin. has reduced deficit spending, "DOWN" to just $160 billion per year.... I'm betting that Maria won't ask Bush, "Mr. President, given that, just before your took office in 2001, the total increase in US Treasury debt in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2000, was just $18 billion....how are you able to make a sincere claim to the American people, that you have reigned in deficit spending, when the actual Treasury debt has increased over $500 billion, in less than the last 12 months? I think that she won't ask click to show this question because GE and it's NBC and CNBC networks, and all of the other corporate owned media, support Bush, and are not of a "liberal bias"....otherwise an $18 billion annual debt increase before Bush took office, and a $540 billion deficit, now....could not possibly be spun as a "reduction".....and what do you think? CNBC mentioned that Bush will tout his reduction of federal budget deficit "down" to #160 billion. A "real" journalist would ask Bush why US treasury deficit continues to increase over $500 billion per year, vs. just $18 billion, just months before Bush took office: 10/09/2007 9,054,144,650,970.07 ($548 billion deficit increase in 11 months) 09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23 09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50 09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32 09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62 09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16 09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06 GHW Bush Takes office.. 09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86 Debt growth just $18 bln 09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43 09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62 09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34 09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73 09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39 09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32 09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38 Clinton Takes office 09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66 09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03 09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25 09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32 GHWB takes office... 09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16 09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00 09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42 09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00 09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00 09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00 09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00 09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00 Reagan takes office.... 09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00 09/30/1979 * 826,519,000,000.00 09/30/1978 * 771,544,000,000.00 09/30/1977 * 698,840,000,000.00 06/30/1976 * 620,433,000,000.00 ...Bush simply hides the true budget deficit via off budget, supplemental appropriations, as he runs the debt up $3.3 trillion......

10-11-2007, 01:30 PM	#3 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	The answer here is simple. The Bush administration frequently forecasts the yearly deficit to be some arbitrarily high number. This way they're able to claim a moral victory when the deficit comes in at lower than what they estimated, even though deficit spending has increased every year since 2001. __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

10-11-2007, 06:28 PM	#4 (permalink)
behindalens Upright	Expect hard hitting questions such as "how do you deal with the stress from criticism" to be submitted days in advance so Bush can fail at his rehearsed response.

10-15-2007, 07:03 AM	#8 (permalink)
host Banned	ace....you and I had this same discussion exactly a year ago, and I obviously did not get through to you: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...&highlight=mew ...you're posting the same opinion now...it flies in the face of the facts....Bush's tax policies transferred the revenue that formerly mitigated a higher deficit, back into the pockets of those who formerly paid the the highest progressive tax rate...the wealthiest ten percent who already owned 70 percent of all assets in the US....and another year of data is in....it supports my argument: 2000 ....US is deficit free....candidate Bush is campaigning to return "the budget surplus" to the taxpayers: <a href="http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:LK4mcAFfc4cJ:www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf+2005+revenue+tax+revenue&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7#2">CBO Data html</a> From: Page 3..."Revenues by Major Source, 1962 to 2006" Individual Income Tax revenue - 2000 ----- 2003 ----- 2006 ........(in billions of $'s) ......... 1,004.5 .. 793.7 .. 1,043.9 Corporate Income Tax Revenue ........(in billions of $'s) ............ 207.3 ... 131.8 ... 353.9 Social Insurance Tax Revenue ........(in billions of $'s) ............ 652.9 ... 713.0 ... 837.8 From: Page 4... "Revenues by Major Source, 1962 to 2006" (Percentage of gross domestic product) Individual Income taxes... 2000= 10.3 percent 2003= 7.3 percent 2006= 8.0 percent From: Page 11.. "Surpluses, Deficits, Debt, and Related Series, 1962 to 2006" Budget Deficit or Surplus: ........(in billions of $'s) - 2000 ----- 2003 ----- 2006 .................................. +236.0 ... -378.0 ... -248.0 ace, in 2000, Social Security (SSI) taxes collected were $652.9 billion, and the $236 billion "surplus in 2000, was that money...the surplus in SSI taxes vs. payments to recipients. In 2006, SSI taxes collected were $837.8 billion.... Bush's budget ran a deficit of $248 billion, plus....all of the SSI surplus of 2006. The amount of that 2006 SSI surplus was part of the $500 billion US Treasury Debt increase of 2006...it is carried on the books as "debt held by the public". <h3>Personal Income tax revenue, when adjusted for inflation, has actually decreased since 2000...and the 2006 deficit was advertised to be $248 billion....only because the entire 2006 SSI surplus was borrowed and spent, but.... not counted as part of the 2006 deficit, and because of a temporary, windfall increase in corporate income tax revenue, which is probably over, after 2007.</h3> Bush and the republican congress...for six years, transferred the tax burden from the top ten percent, to a massively increased debt burden to the other 90 percent, who own just 30 percent of the country's total wealth. Real populists...these "folks" you advocate for....ace!