Go go deficit power!
 

Financial record!!! (a bad one)

Well, wonderful. This is going to have to be dealt with some way or another... because Bush is content on flexing our military might (helping out the defense donators) and handing out tax cuts we can't afford (helping out the rich donators), we're on our way to the biggest deficit ever. Right now it's only the biggest deficit in pure absolute terms. but it is supposed to be the largest deficit in real terms...

This is somewhat insightful:

"While Democrats and Republicans traded charges over the deficit in predictable ways (Democrats calling President George Bush's policies irresponsible; Republicans saying it's all quite manageable), more unusual is the IMF sticking its nose in. The international bank is set to reproach the U.S. for being too optimistic in its assumptions on government spending and revenue, and lacking a coherent budget plan, according to Reuters. The IMF draft report also says that the U.S. lacks "a medium-term concept to consolidate budgets and reform the social insurance system." "

Please keep in mind that the numbers being released concerning the debt do NOT include the cost of our proto-imperial foray into Iraq.

At $1.8 billion per month that could add up real quick like.

2Wolves

I think that was counted in the extended figures... up to $500b debt...

and guess who's going to get it in the rear: the poor who are the worst affected by cutting services.

I know you dems would like to solely blame Bush, but this is what happens after a hyper-inflated economy becomes grounded and a major terrorist attack occurs.

Yeah damn it those poor people who dont even pay income tax arent getting any cuts!@

Strawmen! Two for a buck!

M.P.P. you really should pick your fights better.

Take a moment and actually look at the inflation rates in the '92 to '00 period and get back to me.

I weary of educating you.

2Wolves

Those two elements have never occurred in tandem in the history of the United States. It was also the longest economic boom in US history and the worst terrorist attack. Respectfully, there isn't sufficient precedent for what we're experiencing.

I agree that bush sucks, but this comment right here shows your ignorance as tow aht you speak of, all I shall say is research economics and try to read the actual documents if available (this goes for all time), not summaries or what other people have to say about them.

Aren't we prosecuting corporations and their officers for cookin' the books
and misrepresenting numbers.

Can't we expect the same accountability for our government?

Give it to us straight...and then let's get it back on track.

I'm not expecting a profit from the U.S.
but then again, I don't like waste.

I hate this bullshit, I expect some results from them.
From ALL sides.
Enough of the spin.

Whatever else may be true, this is the first time in history where we have lowered taxes while engaging in war activities.

:confused:
First off, when talking about my ignorance, you could at least make your posts understandable...

No, no, I also blame Dick Cheney. And if I'm feeling particularly ambitious, I blame Karl Rove. It's only in my blackest of black moods when I start listing the names of the Scalia Five who put this pack of thieves in office over and over again, like a mantra.

But seriously, though, I'm not seeking to blame Bush all by his lonesome. He's not smart enough to do this much damage without some serious help.

I blame Bill Clinton and any other Demorcrat that has held office. Republicans do no wrong and they are only trying to make things better. Don't you all see that?


~edit~
Sorry my sarcasm apears to be a troll...it isn't. Just making a point.

To go along with my last post, at your job when something is wrong do you blame other co-workers or people that held your job before you or do you just do your best to fix it?

Politicians behaving badly is what it comes down to. Well, Republicans behaving badly. I seriously can't remember any extremely disgusting political behavior from any other major party in recent memory. However, from the Republicans alone (in the past four years) we have four shining examples:

1. Attempted impeachment of President Clinton
2. Supreme Court stopping the 2000 electionrecount in Florida
3. Forcing the recall vote for California governor Gray Davis
4. Calling special house sessions to rerawing districts in Texas to ensure Republican advantage (https://www.moveon.org/texasads/letter.html)

While each one of these is technically legal, (I guess anything the Supremes do is legal though ;)) it doesn't make the behavior of the Republican party any more acceptable. I guess good always loses, because evil "cheats."

Maybe we should make like California and do a "recall" of GWB. Or maybe we should Terminate him, I wonder if T-X is a Democrat. :)

It's not just Bush's and Cheney's fault, it's congresses too.

Example: Army needs a bunch of 747's. Congress ends up leasing the planes instead of buying them with an option to buy. Turns out that the planes would just be cheaper to buy instead of lease. If we buy the planes when the lease runs out it would be about 5 BILLION dollars wasted.

(Trying to find the links, having trouble right now)

Congress is never known for being efficient anyways :D

Anyways the deficit gets worse and worse, at least try to balance the damn budget rather than just letting it slide and pretending nothing happens so somoene else comes in to inherit the problem

Any large government is going to be inefficient.

As to the deficit, if congress would pay the damn thing off and stop making stupid budget decisions, we would see deflation occur across the board and the american dollar would be worth alot more.

No, that's what happens when you give out a half trillion dollar tax cut to the rich who don't need it anyway.

The Rich are the ones who spend the most money. Giving Joe Sixpack a taxbreak or credit won't do dick. THe idea was that giving money back to the rich (remember the ones who actually spend money) would help the economy because they would invest it. Investing it would cause economic growth and generate jobs. More jobs means more competition, more money being paid out, more money being paid out more taxes collected, more money put into the system. It's really a sound economic idea, just how it plays out is what matters.

I'd like to see any links from independent organizations that back up your post. OMB would be good. Please no Lush Rimshot.

2Wolves

MY GOD!! someone still believes in trickle down economics!!! please tell me that this was a sarcasm post, please please please.

Try this as an alternative: rich people have all of their basic necessity's taken care of, and are using the majority of their wealth to try to make more money. Sometimes this means that they invest it locally (which is what the trickle down theory is based on) but often it means that they invest it elsewhere (overseas) which does not help the economy. Whats worse if the economy is bad, they will feel skittish, and keep it in low risk areas.. bonds, banks, very stable companies which do nothing to stimulate economic growth.

On the other hand if you give the money to poor people, people who are living hand to mouth they will spend it immediately. This money is all spent locally because poor people don't make off shore investments. The money doesn't go to the bank because the people who get it have things they still need to buy. It directly stimulates the economy. Further the companies (which is who we wanted the rich people to give there money too) end up with the money after they sell their product to the poor people. They make a profit, because thats what companies do, and they have a larger pool of customers so they make *more* money.

I'm not going to touch the morality of giving people money or tax cuts. Thats no the point, I'm just talking about economics and game theory. Trickle down economics works very poorly, Trickle up is a much more accurate description of how it works... after all why do you think the rich people are rich, and continue to get wealthier?

[EDIT]
For anyone who would like to see some numbers rather than people just shooting off: http://www.ufenet.org/research/TrickleDown.html

I agree 100%, if the rich did as such things might be in better shape. I like your idea of the poor spending money though, but the thing is they don't make enough enough to get taxed. But I don't see what the bug fuss is anyways, it was only a matter of time until the economy took a dip, its the nature of the beast. It is on the road to recovery, the problem I see is that all the blue collar jobs are getting shipped out of the country, that is a big problem.

The poor people still are paying a shitload of the taxes. I mean really if you are making minimum wage you shouldn't be paying *any* taxes hell 40 hours at minimum wage still leaves well below the poverty line. I am (temporarily) a poor person (age, full time student) and so are most of my friends (though some of them are more permanently poor) and let me tell you... the government still takes a huge bite. Its an even bigger and nastier bite when you realize that Social Security is just another tax, which is not applied to the rich proportionally. (once you hit a certain income you stop paying a % on all you earn over that) The working poor loose about 30% of their income to taxes and S.S. I know I'm down here in the trenches.

As far as blue collar jobs going overseas... yes they are, but there is no solution to that. Corporate wellfare will only slow down the exodus as long as you are giving up everything you gained by having them here. Tariffs never work. This is a facet where we just loose, and should try to make it hurt as little as possible. Oh and its not just blue collar jobs that are leaving, many white collar ones are going too. If you have a rational plan for combating job export I would love to hear it.

I thought if you make below 17,000ish (the poverty line) no taxes are taken out? Or is it an issue of federal vs. state tax?

Still waiting for those links M.P.P..

2Wolves

The actual 'forecasting' of federal defict or surplus is a very very difficult job according to the Economist. I read an article a while ago and basicly it said there's no sure way to say that your defict there will end up 2+ trillion until the end of Bush's hegemony. It could, but then, it might not.

All the signs are pointing to the record high defict but so they were when Clinton came to power, and turned that to a nice surplus.

I'm not going to quibble over the cut-off points because I can make my points with the numbers you're citing.

1) $17,000 per year is ~$1400 dollars per month. I don't know where you live but on the outskirts of Orange County (say, 30 minutes from the university here), California the average rent is $1400 (and that's not for a particularly safe or clean environment). Right here in Irvine the average rates are above $2000.

2) Even if such people don't ultimately pay taxes, the gov still removes it from their paychecks--and then returns it at the end of the year. This is, of course, after the person navigates through the tax form and/or pays someone to complete if for him or her.

The bottom line--there isn't any rational argument to be made that says people earning close to the "poverty line" can take care of themselves or a family. They get taxes taken out just like the rest of the American public--they just might get it back the following year.

BTW, your 17,000 figure would be based on someone making $8.75. That's a few dollars more per hour than minimum wage and approx 2 million people would be grateful just to be earning minimum wage right now. My wife makes $9 (her criminology and singing bachelors secured her a receptionist position) and she still pays about $80 per week in taxes. I'll know next year how much we get back but from the previous years I'm pretty sure we didn't get it all back.

We're able to provide for our needs because the school gave us graduate housing, pays my tuition, and gives me a salary. Her paycheck goes towards food and her school bills. I have a feeling that we are well off in this current climate.

one wrong answer. everyone is taxed, and just pays out at a different rate. my 30% tax rate doesn't scale up. while someone who might make less than i do, could easily pay more in taxes... because they don't have the ability to shelter bits of their income from taxation (IRAs, retirement plans, buying a house, etc). this is why so many people talk about a flat tax system (10% of income, or somesuch), and seem to favour it. tax burdon, accross the board, would be evenly carried by every citizen.

it was inevitable that the economy dropped. the jobs "leaving the US" is just normal capitalism at work. as someone had pointed out in an article a while ago, you can generally replace "concervative" with "cheap labour advocate" and see their economic side.