Patrick.net

Federal Surplus and Our future: Raising tax for the rich

By Nobody   Follow   Tue, 30 Nov 2010, 9:09pm   2,564 views   68 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

Some people are utterly confused about the fact that some people who are preaching higher tax for the rich are motivated by the pure hatred for the rich.

It is actually not about the hatred toward rich. It doesn't involve emotion. It is about balancing the federal deficit. Because Republicans have instituted the tax cut; our social services, education system and highway system have been steadily shrinking. Our nation had the best education system, best highway system and social services. Because we had the best education system, we were able to forester the best and brightest in our country to contribute to our society. Now because of the deficit, our school is shrinking. Only the wealthy, that is 1%, can afford to give their children the best education. Our federal deficit is robbing the future and dreams from the children whose parents can't afford to give them private education.

And for those of you who believe the raising the tax for the rich would eliminate our jobs. Well, raising or lowering tax for the rich has no bearing on companies from hiring or laying off workers. The company's decision to hire workers has always been driven by the demand for increased production of goods and services. The companies will not hire, just because the spending (paying tax) is decreased.

And in order to increase the demand for the goods and services, the money must be allocated to someone who would most likely spend it to acquire goods and services. The rich can afford to save the money which will sit in the bank only contributing 1% to 2% to the economy. The middle to lower income earners can't afford to save it, so they will spend it to purchase the services and goods. The contribution of the money is 100% to the economy. While rich folks, regardless of tax, more than likely can afford not to change their spending habit, middle to lower income earners will change their spending habit significantly even with a minute fluctuation in their take home money. The rich has accumulated their wealth in the past 10 years. It is time to give a little. Taxing the rich has profound positive effect on our economy
as well as our federal budget.

So besides the historical facts, the logic is pretty simple. If we raise the tax for the rich and give that money to our government, the government can spend most of it on something more meaningful for our future and economy. The money that government spend has more profound effect on economy. It creates jobs to provide better government services, such as education, etc. Raising the tax for the middle to lower income earners will have a negative impact on our economy, as I mentioned, because it will have severe impact on the consumption. Less consumption by the majority of the population has more impact than by 1 to 2% of the population.

Lastly, we need to have best education system to compete with countries like China, Japan or India. As long as we maintain the technology edge over these countries, we can maintain such jobs here in US. Other wise, we will even lose those high skill jobs to these countries. It is time for us to save our country. Don't let Republicans help the rich at the cost of our nation and our future. We can't afford $700 billion hole in the federal budget by giving tax break to the 1 to 2% of the population. Our past generation has paid their fair share for our future. It is time our generation pay our fair share for the future and dreams of our children.

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 29-68 of 68     Last »     See most liked comments

1. Nobody Follow Befriend 10 threads 274 comments San Jose, CA

   29   7:11am Fri 3 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Troy, Sure. But why take away the purchasing power from everyone right now? It maybe true that we have to raise the taxes across the board eventually. My concern is that it can deflate the demands for domestic consumption by doing so. My position is to first raise the tax for the wealthy, so it has less impact on domestic consumption of goods and services. So it won't effect our jobs. When our federal budge is less into negative, we should begin to see more jobs. With so much capital in the market, our salary or compensation should also improve. At that point, we can increase the tax across the board. I am not sure how else we can start balancing our federal deficit without negatively impacting the majority. But if anyone else has a good idea, I'd like to know. The fact that 10% of population provide 70% of the federal income tax revenue can also mean the 10% of the population is earning majority of the entire income in US. That sounds pretty lopsided. I understand wealthy worked hard for their money. But concentration of cash to a small group of people will not add to our economy. The money is worth more to the economy, when it is used to purchase goods and services. This is the point I am making as well as many other economists. Balancing a federal budget should be done without hatred for the wealthy. You can call it class warfare. I just call it simple economic act of balancing the federal budget. It is unconscionable for wealthy to refuse the higher tax when the tax was used to give us the opportunity that we enjoy so much. Our past generation has paid their dues for us, I believe it is time for us to pay ours for our future and our children.

2. bob2356 Follow Befriend 3 threads 2,564 comments

   30   11:44am Fri 3 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   artistsoul says Europeans have higher tax rates than we do and yet their real estate is quite expensive per sq ft. They tend to hold onto property within families and live in situations where multi-generations share the home. They have to because their prices are like California’s :) Some countries do, some countries don't. "Europe" isn't monolithic.

3. artistsoul Follow Befriend (1) 132 comments

   31   12:00pm Fri 3 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Ok...England, France and Germany have higher tax rates AND have expensive real estate. I suspect others as well. My point was only that it is possible to have high taxes and maintain expensive real estate values. If we DOUBLED taxes, as Troy points out....well, yes. Something would have to give. People need to eat. Prices of housing would have to fall. Had America not overspent so drastically, perhaps we would not have had to consider raising taxes.

4. artistsoul Follow Befriend (1) 132 comments

   32   3:00pm Fri 3 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Did it ever occur to Shrek that our deficit has exploded in recent years due in large part to two wars ushered in by a Republican president as well as by massive bailouts of capitalist Wall Street banks and corporations that were coined, PRE Obama, too big to fail. I agree we have spending issues. Both spending will need to be cut and taxes increased to restore financial order. I saw no evidence on this thread of envy and spite for the wealthy. Do you not think it is possible for a "wealthy" person to support tax hikes? Do you not think it is possible for a "wealthy" person to appreciate that while their education, contributions and hard work had some part in their fortune that both luck and opportunity often play just as large a part? Do you not think it possible for a "wealthy" person to care about the financial health of their government and the well being of their fellow citizens? Where is that ignore button? BTW, maybe Patrick will post a list of those ignored so you can get the confirmation you sought earlier.

5. Nobody Follow Befriend 10 threads 274 comments San Jose, CA

   33   3:43pm Fri 3 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Shrekidiot, Your ignorance of macro-economy and lack of consideration for our future is really amazing. By twisting posters' comment to delude yourself of your claim is self serving. It is funny how you think spending cut can cure our federal deficit. It has been interesting to see the other side of story. But your lack of knowledge really disappoints me and makes these threads very superficial and meaningless. That is why you are not getting response. Did you learn anything? I have laid out all the logic of why we need to balance our federal deficit. And the way to start is by taxing the rich. I feel sorry that you have to come here and rant that you are victimized, just because you are rich. Taxation is not getting screwed in the ass. But some of our tax is used on more meaningful cause. You may not have gotten the education, but more people getting educated is better for our economy. But you probably don't see that. In any case, it has been interesting. Shrekgreed. Maybe some day you may understand what Artistsoul is saying. Maybe not.

6. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

   34   5:01pm Fri 3 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   marcus says shrekgrinch says Thank your for proving that “that some people who are preaching higher tax for the rich are motivated by the pure hatred for the rich.” I love the rich actually. But the ones I hold in the very highest esteem are ones like Warren Buffet, who say that living in this country which gave him such great opportunities, makes him feel obliged to give back. He feels that his taxes should be higher, and he feels in general that high income earners taxes are too low. And I will repeat for you, I don’t advocate punitive taxes that are too high - just reasonable progressive rates. Keeping taxes on high income earners as low as they are, when we have the deficits we have now is simply immoral as far as I’m concerned. It’s criminal. Everyone says it adds 700 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. Your justification for rates being so low is, “it’s their money.” What kind of argument is that ? Are you saying taxes should be zero ? MY belief is that spending is also too high. But logically the best way to get spending down is to have tax rates cover all spending. That is, we should have a balanced budget. Most of the people in government are in the highest brackets. So what would happen if taxes equaled spending is that politicians would be forced to negotiate the tough spending decisions. IT’s not just the pressure of their own personal finances, but also the pressure from their rich powerful benefactors. You know I’m right. DO you also believe that both DEMS and REPs are afraid of losing office so they sit on their thumbs and do nothing? The Debt Commission put forth reasonable accommodations and each party is afraid to support it based upon old people not voting because they would lose social security, medicare.

7. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

   35   5:14pm Fri 3 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   You both provide a PRIME example of our country's two party system: RICH vs. POOR.shrekgrinch says Nobody says But concentration of cash to a small group of people will not add to our economy. The money is worth more to the economy, when it is used to purchase goods and services. Complete Keynesian bullshit promoted by the economically illiterate and/or those with such an extreme liberal world view that all true facts that threaten said view have to be automatically denied. Sorry if I am being openly insulting now. But the facts are facts. @Shrek Nobody is actually right in his statements that providing tax breaks to the rich does nothing to stimulate the economy. There have been many debt studies prior to the debt commission which have proven that tax breaks for the rich only further strengthen their portfolios and investments.

8. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 171 threads 5,214 comments

   36   5:27pm Fri 3 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says You can’t. Familiarize yourself with Hauser’s Law and get back to me. Until you do, I would recommend you refrain from demonstrating further ignorance on this topic. Gosh. I guess impressing me with your amazing intellect and even more impressive ego is a substitute for considering my very simple easy to understand logic. Unlike me, you are backing your way in to justifying your opinion with nonsense. Here again. What we need is a real "pay go," that is taxes that are as close to what we are spending as possible. Again (and I apologize that I don't need to cite any academic theories - only simple logic - just because it's at a level that a child would know it to be true true, doesn't make it false): The legislators and the powers that influence the legislators are virtually all in the highest tax brackets. So, the way that you get them to negotiate and make the grown up decisions on spending is to actually pay our bills with reasonably progressive taxes at a rate that covers our spending. This would not be difficult. One way would be to have the progressive steps determined, but the actually rates for each step would change each year, depending on the previous years spending. We would need it well audited (the government) to prevent games being played (by legislators) and cheating, such as figuring out creative ways to borrow rather than pay. Obviously big investment type expenditures would still be amortized over time. We have proven that deficit spending does not force the government to reduce spending. It's as if the rich think "give me the money, and force the debt higher until government is forced to spend responsibly." Every informed person knows this doesn't work. That is, it hasn't worked. Talk about history !!! What if high income earners knew that this reasoning will lead to total disaster. Would they they care ? Shreks response is going to be more designed to obfuscate and show how intelligent he thinks he is, than to clearly refute this simple solution.

9. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,718 comments

   37   6:37pm Fri 3 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says Sorry if I am being openly insulting now. But the facts are facts Obviously you don't understand what the definition of fact is. Get back to me when you figure it out.

10. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

    38   6:43pm Fri 3 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   There's really no reason this economy has to be so volatile, like a crack baby on more crack. There was no great wealth-destruction event of 2007, what happened was processes that could not continue forever failed as they were going to. The primary systemic risk was speculative feedback of over-investment in land values and housing in general. Show me a f---ed up modern economy, and I'll show a land market that got WAAY out of control. Land economics is the unseen gash in the hull of our ship. Without eliminating the rentierism and redirecting rents from skimmers back to productive or prospectively productive enterprise, we will continue this drunken lurching of the business cycle. WTF were we thinking, 1999-2006: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CMDEBT The field of economics has been compromised by rentiers and their money for 100+ years now. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/coe/cofe00.htm The media and public policy environment has been compromised by the monied right since the Powell Memo of the early 1970s. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=9606 I just don't see how it's not all downhill from here. The Republicans can pump out their "millionaires are the job-creators -- we can't raise their income taxes 10%" propaganda and not be laughed out of town, even though this is the same stupid thing they were saying in 1993. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/10/1993-quotes Having said all that, I don't have the answers. I suspect it's in our best interest to continue offshoring production to Chindia. If they want to work for $2/hr, fine, let them make our shit. We need to focus on cleaning house here at home. Purging the system of all the skimmers. And there are MILLIONs of them, most of them making millions a year in economic rents, too, or close.

11. Clarence 13X Follow Befriend 23 threads 456 comments

    39   10:33pm Fri 3 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Troy says We need to focus on cleaning house here at home. Purging the system of all the skimmers. And there are MILLIONs of them, most of them making millions a year in economic rents, too, or close. Where will our middle class jobs come from?

12. Nobody Follow Befriend 10 threads 274 comments San Jose, CA

    40   10:33pm Sun 5 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Troy, You are right. Republicans' lie of "reward the rich, so we have more jobs" just does not make economical logic at all. I am not going to hire workers based on how much money I saved. I hire when I need to increase my production or output of goods and services. If I have more money, I will simply keep it in the bank as a reserve. Why should I add capital when I don't need to increase my production or output? So the money will just sit in the bank adding only 1 to 2 % to the economy. So how do we stimulate the demand for goods and services? Do you think giving 4% tax cut to the 2% of the population will stimulate the demand? Upside of taxing 4% more to the 2% would mean less federal deficit. It is unfortunate that the congress has given tax cuts to everyone. We had the same policy for the last 10 years, and it got us into this mess. FED is dumping dollars into the market reducing the value of our savings. It will hurt anyone who has cash. If it wasn't for Chinese, our dollar would have taken more painful hit. Could you imagine $10 for a gallon of gasoline? Now we extend the tax cuts for everyone, prepare for the worst to come. Having cash reserve will not save you, cause the inflation is going to wipe out the value of dollar. Housing market crush was easy to predict. I knew selling all of my real estate assets was the way to protect the assets. I hope that 2 years are not going to be enough to cause massive problem.

13. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,651 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    41   3:19pm Mon 6 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   shrekgrinch says Presidents don’t control the budget process much EXCEPT when Congress is controlled by their party. Again you're totally wrong. Clinton vetoed 13 budgets passed by a Republican congress. Not a single one was overridden. The budget became balanced to a large extent because Clinton resisted Republican calls for higher military spending and tax cuts.

14. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,651 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    42   3:20pm Mon 6 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   shrekgrinch says Lessee, with the Republicans in charge of Congress right up to the 2007 budget (passed in 2006), the deficit was falling even with Iraq War expenditures. Then the Dems got elected in 2006, took charge in 2007 and their first budget was 2008’s. Wow! Whaddya know? Which program did Democrats pass in 2007 and/or 2008 that added to the deficit beyond what Republicans agreed on? Name one single bill. (this question will not under any circumstances be answered by Shrek)

15. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,651 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    43   3:38pm Mon 6 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   shrekgrinch says Yeah, but the spending dropped. So what if he vetoed budget bills to prove that he was ‘in charge’ and to keep the base drummed up? They where still Rep budgets and spending fell. He vetoed the budget bills to force Republicans to make changes. This is a direct contradiction to your assertion that the president doesn't control the budget process.

16. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,651 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    44   3:39pm Mon 6 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   shrekgrinch says iwog says Which program did Democrats pass in 2007 and/or 2008 that added to the deficit beyond what Republicans agreed on? Name one single bill. (this question will not under any circumstances be answered by Shrek) You seem to be under the misnomer that minority Congressional party has any responsibility to govern. It doesn’t. Pelosi, Reid and crew certainly understood that. They completely cut the Reps out of the loop, too. So where was the ‘agreements’ between Congressional Reps and Dems that can be classified as truly mutually arranged deals? What deals that were cut were with the White House. And the White House hardly had any support. But iwog, get back to the main issue: Will raising income taxes on the rich (a) raise additional revenue, (b) not raise additional revenue or (c) even cause a drop in revenue raised? See what I mean folks? The assertion: Democrats caused deficit spending in 2007 and 2008. The reality: There's not one single bill that Shrek can point to! NOT ONE!!!!

17. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,651 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    45   3:45pm Mon 6 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   shrekgrinch says iwog says The assertion: Democrats caused deficit spending in 2007 and 2008. The reality: There’s not one single bill that Shrek can point to! NOT ONE!!!! Don’t need to look at individual bills. Just look at the total amount of spending and see how it spiked after the Dems took over. Simple. I don't think you understand just how badly your assertion fails. This is the death of your argument. If Democrats were responsible for ANY deficit spending in 2007 or 2008, you should be able to point to a single spending bill. I'm not surprised you can't name one, because there isn't one. The Democrats were effectively prevented from passing anything during those two years by Senate Republicans. The ONLY bills that were voted on were the ones Senate Republicans wanted. There are no exceptions. Disagree? The provide the exceptions. Simple.

18. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,651 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    46   3:46pm Mon 6 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   shrekgrinch says Will raising income taxes on the rich (a) raise additional revenue from the rich, (b) not raise additional revenue or even cause a drop in revenue from the rich raised? Of course raising taxes will raise additional revenue from rich people. That's exactly what happened in 1993. Why would it be different now?

19. Done! Follow Befriend (4) 159 threads 2,826 comments

    47   5:06pm Mon 6 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   "Some people are utterly confused about the fact that some people who are preaching higher tax for the rich are motivated by the pure hatred for the rich. It is actually not about the hatred toward rich. It doesn’t involve emotion. It is about balancing the federal deficit." Sure it is Cupcake! You can't screw the middle class then Rape them, by passing legislation that puts them in a 1400 a month premiums. At a time when Banks wont LOAN over 60% of the population a $1400 a month mortgage, and for good GOD DAMN reason, $1400 is a lot of Phucking money, I MEAN A REALLY LOT OF MONEY it's a 300K house(Great Job Clintons!!!). Is nobody outraged by that prospect? ALL Americans are for Taxing the rich more, don't kid your self. The problem is you can't say your trying to Tax the Rich when it's the Middle class that gets the Shaft in the AM after all of these wee hour Congressional deals that keeps putting the Middle class on the hook. And further Scott free the Rich gets. You Democrats aren't fooling ANYONE, not even the idiots you pulled from behind their Computer monitors to Vote for Bozo Obama.

20. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 274 threads 12,651 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    48   5:45pm Mon 6 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   shrekgrinch says Sorry, but the Dems had total control of the Senate. They could have denied the Reps the filibuster with a 51 vote resolution at the beginning of the 2007 Congress. They didn’t, so they are responsible for the outcome. YES. that is how political accountability works, iwog. Sorry if you refuse to see that. The electorate sure as hell didn’t. I'm not denying anything. You made the claim that the increased deficit was caused by Democrats in 2007 and 2008. You STILL have not presented one single piece of legislation that showed increased spending by the Democrats. The fact that the Democrats allowed gridlock by not repealing a rule that is over 150 years old and rooted in the traditions of American government has NOTHING to do with your claim. You posted a graph. You showed a deficit spike and claimed "Da Dems did it". You're either going to describe specifically what they did, or you're going to lose this argument. There's no grey area here and I'm no being self-serving. Saying someone is at fault, then utterly failing to name what they are at fault FOR, is a massive fail. The specific claim doesn't matter.

21. RayAmerica Follow Befriend (9) 120 threads 2,591 comments Burbank, CA

    49   5:53pm Mon 6 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Dear Mr. Nobody: Please take note. Mr. "Hope & Change" has just announced the Bush tax cuts will be extended across the board for another two years, including the "rich." LOL

22. Nobody Follow Befriend 10 threads 274 comments San Jose, CA

    50   7:19pm Mon 6 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Ray. Can't help what has happened. I told you there is a pending economic disaster in my previous post for that. What would you do to prepare? Whether you believe me or not, that is up to you. Chinese has pegged the value of US$ for so long as FED dumped more US$ into the market. If Chinese abandon its effort to peg our currency, we could see a massive inflation. That will further devalue US$. The price of gasoline couple triple or quadruple as well as other goods, especially from China. Upppps, excuse me, everything is from China.... I hate to agree with iwog, but it maybe time to invest into gold or real estate.

23. artistsoul Follow Befriend (1) 132 comments

    51   8:01pm Mon 6 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   RayAmerica says Dear Mr. Nobody: Please take note. Mr. “Hope & Change” has just announced the Bush tax cuts will be extended across the board for another two years, including the “rich.” LOL I don't think Mr. Hope & Change had a choice. Americans, with their 5 second attention span, voted in Republicans b/c things hadn't magically turned around in 18 months. Abandon ship!!!!!! The Tea Party will save us. Now you understand that we voters have to get back to Keeping up with the Kardashians b/c we really don't have the time to keep up with politics. So, Ray you are in business man!! Your boys forced his hand on this. WTG.

24. bob2356 Follow Befriend 3 threads 2,564 comments

    52   4:07am Tue 7 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says What? The deficit skyrocketed during the years the the Dems were in control of Congress in 2007 after falling in the years before they gained control. The deficits decreased all through the Clinton years with a "surplus" (on paper at least) his last 3 years in office while the deficit was very high all through the Bush years, so what are you talking about? The deficit while bush was in office was the lowest in 2005,2006 with the out of control housing bubble bringing lots of tax dollars. Were you aware that there was a "small" hiccup with the economy in 2007 that had a "minor" negative effect tax revenues just as the dems took over? Perhaps you should read about it some time. Both parties are to blame for both the deficit and debt mess, don't even bother to suggest that the repubs are not equally or even more culpable.

25. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 171 threads 5,214 comments

    53   7:03am Tue 7 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says Don’t need to look at individual bills. Just look at the total amount of spending and see how it spiked after the Dems took over. Simple. Okay, but unlike Shrek, I won't confuse deficit with spending. Table on left is from 07 budget when 08 numbers were only a forecast, the one on right shows what actually happened. By far most of the increase in the annual deficit in 08 was attributable to decrease in revenues, rather than increased spending. Shrek is all bluster. But hey, I'll give him this, he is great at communicating what he wishes was true, topped off with some arrogance which I guess somehow makes it really true ?

26. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 171 threads 5,214 comments

    54   7:06am Tue 7 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ Choose years under "budget data," on left a little ways down.

27. Nobody Follow Befriend 10 threads 274 comments San Jose, CA

    55   8:44am Tue 7 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I am not sure where Shrekidiot is coming from. I have said over and over, we had federal surplus when Clinton was in the office. Bush and Republicans squandered all of them away. And this recession happened during Bush's administration. Is Shrekidiot really this ignorant or he is just a sad excuse for a human being?

28. RayAmerica Follow Befriend (9) 120 threads 2,591 comments Burbank, CA

    56   10:01am Tue 7 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Nobody says I have said over and over, we had federal surplus when Clinton was in the office. Bush and Republicans squandered all of them away. I agree with your statement about Bush and the social moderates & Libs of the GOP that never saw a social program they didn't want to increase. As far as Clinton and his supposed "surplus." It's far more complex than that. For example; Clinton was forced into spending cuts by Gingrich & company (Congress actually controls spending, not the Executive Branch). Clinton also refinanced (little known and talked about) massive amounts of long term debt into far riskier short term, which lowered interest rate payouts. Clinton also benefitted from the end of the Cold War and was able to introduce massive cuts in the military. Clinton also shifted much of the welfare type programs on to the backs of the states. Having said all that, overall, Clinton's 8 years in office collectively INCREASED the debt by just shy of $885 billion for a yearly average deficit of $110+billion. Small potatoes when compared to Reagan ($1.7 trillion total for 8 years), G.H.W.Bush ($1.1 trillion total for 4 years), G. Bush ($5+trilion in 8 years). Obama is completely off the map. The point is: Clinton's "surplus" is a myth. Also a huge myth is that one party is more responsible than the other. BOTH parties are spending us into oblivion, while we Americans take partisan sides.

29. Done! Follow Befriend (4) 159 threads 2,826 comments

    57   10:55am Tue 7 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Nobody says I am not sure where Shrekidiot is coming from. I have said over and over, we had federal surplus when Clinton was in the office. Bush and Republicans squandered all of them away. And this recession happened during Bush’s administration. Is Shrekidiot really this ignorant or he is just a sad excuse for a human being? Yeah because Bill Clinton didn't raise the taxes on every one, he didn't have to. The Surplus came from the volume of Capitol gains, which Clinton did not interfere with. I'll give him that, even if he played the shell game on "Fixing" the health care system. It was more broke and corrupt after he got his Slut Paws on it. But I give him props on how he handled the economy during his Administration. Unfortunately his legacy wasn't as Rosy. Sure Bush and Repubs squandered the Surplus. But we as not even Tax payers, but as consumers and health care patients are paying more in our daily lives for Clintons follies, than we are in our tab of the over all tax bill.

30. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 209 threads 4,515 comments Davis, CA

    58   11:16am Tue 7 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   RayAmerica says Also a huge myth is that one party is more responsible than the other. BOTH parties are spending us into oblivion, while we Americans take partisan sides. Bzzzt wrong! Tax and spend is inherently a balanced budget approach. Borrow and spend leads to increasing deficit, which is the GOP modus operandi. Democrats are more honest about "we want social program X, now here is the proposed tax Y to pay for it". GOP is more like a moron relative of mine that hid their bills from the spouse until it all blew up.

31. Nobody Follow Befriend 10 threads 274 comments San Jose, CA

    59   11:25am Tue 7 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Shrekidiot, I wonder if you can read into the sarcasm, or you are just too stupid. Or you are just so wrong and uneducated that the sarcasm is the only thing you can come after. The oil does not have to come from China. Oil is tied to US$. If the value of dollar falls, it will increase the price of oil. I am no longer addressing this to you but to others. You have not mentioned a single shred of logic or fact to support your claim. Just an example of your ignorance and stupidity.

32. Nobody Follow Befriend 10 threads 274 comments San Jose, CA

    60   11:27am Tue 7 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Tenouce and Ray, OK, I am not here to discuss the federal surplus being real or not. But based on your fact, when Clinton raised the tax, the deficit was definitely lower. If we had $110+ billion deficit a year, it seems another small increase in tax on 2% of the population help balance our federal budget. It seems like a small price to pay. My point is that we must first balance the federal budget, because of the reasons I have sighted. We all know what happened after we had our tax reduced. For the last 10 years, our unemployment went from 4% to 10%. So we need to ask ourselves if lowering the tax really help the jobs. Oh, let's not pin the federal deficit on Obama alone for the last 2 years. That seems unfair.

33. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,718 comments

    61   2:30pm Tue 7 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says So, either you go directly after their WEALTH (assets) or cut spending or increase the nation’s GDP growth rate (which increases the take you get from rich people). That’s the only way. Or you do all three.

34. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 171 threads 5,214 comments

    62   6:16pm Tue 7 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says Just look at the total amount of spending and see how it spiked after the Dems took over. Simple I saw your argument with Iwog and I understood it to be about democrats causing spending to go up when they took control of congress. Which was graphically inferred by you with a graph above that shows 2008 deficit went way back up to the Bush 2003, 2004 level. I tried to do what you said, looking up spending, only to find that the biggest reason why the deficit went up so much in 2008 is that tax revenues were 138B under what they were expected to be. That is, not only did they not rise as expected, they dropped. Instead of just saying "oops," here's your response. shrekgrinch says Deficit is when you spend more than you have in revenues. That’s all. That is why the common verb form is called ‘deficit spending’. All deficits are caused by excessive spending. ALL deficit spending is when the government spends more than it takes in. Where is the confusion? shrekgrinch says Sorry if you missed what the definition of ‘deficit’ is. You can scroll up or read this (again). Deficit is when you spend more than you have in revenues. That’s all. That is why the common verb form is called ‘deficit spending’. All deficits are caused by excessive spending. Given that my entire point was that the deficit went up more because of an unanticipated decrease in revenues than an increase in spending, I think it's clear that I understand what deficit means. I really do think a simple "oops" would have reflected on you much better. Like Ray (are you Ray ?), you just can't or won't be wrong.

35. MattBayArea Follow Befriend 9 threads 123 comments

    63   6:57pm Tue 7 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I don't want to pick fights with individuals, it's too easy to get caught up in petty arguments - I find this discussion too interesting to risk that! I do, however, want to point out that there may be a flaw with the theory that we should blame X party (the one with the majority in congress) for all increases in spending during a given time period. For instance, increases in spending under a democrat controlled congress while Bush was in office should be given more thought that simply saying "They were in control, spending increased during that time, therefor they are to blame". Why did spending really increase, and what was it spent on? We could argue all day about whether or not the Iraq war was right or wrong, but the FACTS are that the Bush administration pushed the war ... and the news media made anyone who argued seem like a traitor. And in the end, there were no weapons of mass destruction or links to the specified terrorist groups. Some of the 'intel' turned out to be outright fabricated (the yellow-cake evidence of a nuclear program...). So should we blame democrats for caving in and giving Bush the money he needed to fight the war? (I would argue yes ... but a greater stake of the blame lies elsewhere imo).

36. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

    64   7:29pm Tue 7 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Nobody says OK, I am not here to discuss the federal surplus being real or not. Total public debt during Clinton budget years One can see that in 2000 total government debt went down. The debt held by the public (total public debt less SSTF etc) is the more important figure, actually, since if we only had SSTF debt we would be a happy place. In this chart you can see that Clinton left Bush with the same amount of debt he inherited from the Reagan/Bush years. Not bad. In real terms the debt declined 20% over the 8 budget years.

37. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

    65   7:32pm Tue 7 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says Only in the last two years, as the housing malinvestment bubble burst. Before that, unemployment had been falling (as was the deficit spending). IT WAS THE HOUSING BUBBLE THAT WAS SUPPORTING THESE JOBS and generating the tax revenues. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HHMSDODNS And it was the TAX CUTS that primed the housing bubble in the first place. In a very real way the Bush tax cuts have destroyed my country, just like Japan's idiocies in the 80s and 90s have destroyed theirs.

38. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 171 threads 5,214 comments

    66   7:29am Wed 8 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Vicente says tax and spend is inherently a balanced budget approach. Borrow and spend leads to increasing deficit, which is the GOP modus operandi. I agree completely. This and other policy differences lead to the rather surprising conclusion that the "liberals" are in fact (also) the conservatives. Not sure what the republicans are besides radical, angry, and in many cases downright unintelligent.

39. RayAmerica Follow Befriend (9) 120 threads 2,591 comments Burbank, CA

    67   7:41am Wed 8 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   marcus says I really do think a simple “oops” would have reflected on you much better. Like Ray (are you Ray ?), Thanks for the compliment ... Shrek sounds incredibly smart.

40. marcus Follow Befriend (5) 171 threads 5,214 comments

    68   5:23pm Fri 10 Dec 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says And regarding the spending stats you did look up — did it cover ALL spending? See, with government stats there is spending and then there is spending and then there is spending… I posted them and gave a link. But you were too busy knowing everything to check them out. shrekgrinch says Sorry, but no. When your revenue/income falls and you can’t raise more but you don’t cut spending to match, then you automatically have a deficit caused by too much spending. It is as simple as that. We are talking about spending and revenues for the same year. These are simultaneous events. But don't worry about it, you lost almost all credibility way before this. shrekgrinch says But it was under the Reps that such borrow and spending went down while it increased when the Dems took over in 2006, as the graph proves. I get it (Ray) you don't take the time to even comprehend my point, let alone look at the data, which is more directly related to your assertion than the deficit bar graph you posted. I could say that I was arguing for the sake of others, but I think most paying attention probably have you on ignore already. Or, if not, soon will.

« First     « Previous comments