Middle Class Report - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-22-2004, 09:13 AM   #61
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
A solid economic base was built so that by the Clinton administration, no one worried about deficits.
Didn't the Congress force the Clinton administration to have a balanced budget, so it could pay off the deficit? They might have not worried about the deficit increasing any further, but they did take care that the deficit was decreasing.
__________________

__________________
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 09-22-2004, 09:29 AM   #62
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic
I would rather pay slightly higher taxes now so that in 65 years I won't have to worry as much about how I'm going to buy food, medication, and where I'm going to live. I'm mostly concerned about health care and social security in the future. I'd rather deal with all the shitty stuff right away when I'm young and more resilient!

Tax cuts are really the one thing I can't really figure out. And I'm pretty much a Republican so it find it rather troublesome.
But the point is, it NEVER works that way, the money never goes into the right fund, they tell you that but it never materializes, so you're just being hurt now.

I'll say till my dying day, the key to reducing the deficit is better money management and less spending, not higher taxes. There is already enough money, it just isn't being managed wisely (by any party)

Quote:
Originally posted by popmarjin



And while it is true that a government will spend more if it has more to spend, I won't call it 'wasting' money either. If they can pay off debts by having more money, if they can invest in education and healthcare, safety, etc. then I do consider that money well spent.
But they DON'T!! While it may look good on paper to you guys, that's not how it works. If things ran that way we would never have a deficit in the first place.

I have relatives who blame FDR for the deficit. By taking us off the gold standard (not printing any more money than you have gold to back it up) it led to a lifestyle of living beyond our means that we have never recovered from. Money that didn't really exist has been being spent for about 70 years!
__________________

__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 09-22-2004, 09:33 AM   #63
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn


Didn't the Congress force the Clinton administration to have a balanced budget, so it could pay off the deficit? They might have not worried about the deficit increasing any further, but they did take care that the deficit was decreasing.
You may be referring to the Balanced Budget Amendment. It never passed.


The US could erase deficits very quickly if it were not involved with the rest of the world.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-22-2004, 09:38 AM   #64
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader




The US could erase deficits very quickly if it were not involved with the rest of the world.
Exactly, and I know you just don't mean the war in Iraq. We donate a lot of money and aid and fund a lot of countries and people in countries for a lot of reasons. If we were not spending that, we wouldn't be in the hole. We forgive the debts of countless others but no one forgives ours.

That's not to say we should never help anyone else, there are also pork barrel projects and 'fleecing of America' wastes of money right here, the $600 toilet seat and all that. Again, the money is there, it just needs to be managed better and the breed of politicians we have (BOTH PARTIES) don't want to do that. NEVER give them a blank check or a right to more of your money, they will only spend it and ask for more. If history hasn't proven this enough to you guys I don't know what else I can say.
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 09-22-2004, 09:41 AM   #65
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
I'll say till my dying day, the key to reducing the deficit is better money management and less spending, not higher taxes. There is already enough money, it just isn't being managed wisely (by any party)
OK, you get it your way. Look if there is a candidate who wants to abolish Medicare, Social Security and public funded schools. That should be a good cut in the spending.

Quote:
I have relatives who blame FDR for the deficit. By taking us off the gold standard (not printing any more money than you have gold to back it up) it led to a lifestyle of living beyond our means that we have never recovered from.
Well, US citizens are not better money managers either... Maybe it is too hard to expect a government to have a balanced budget when the people in the government cannot do it themselves privately.



Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 09-22-2004, 09:44 AM   #66
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
Exactly, and I know you just don't mean the war in Iraq. We donate a lot of money and aid and fund a lot of countries and people in countries for a lot of reasons. If we were not spending that, we wouldn't be in the hole. We forgive the debts of countless others but no one forgives ours.
Most, of not all, of the debt the US government has is to US citizens themselves. Maybe everyone with US government bonds could organise themselves to jointly burn their bonds... That would give one hell of a barbeque fire.

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 09-22-2004, 09:45 AM   #67
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:57 PM
U2Kitten raises a good point here, most of the time governments simply spend too much money (kompare the military expenses of the US with the next 10 countries for example).
I think taxcuts are ok if you don't have to take debts because of the taxcuts.
It should be the end of a process where the government saves money, not the beginning of a process (and the hope that someone, someday will find a way to save money and pay back the debts . that's irresponsible from my point of view)
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-22-2004, 10:01 AM   #68
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn


And while it is true that a government will spend more if it has more to spend, I won't call it 'wasting' money either. If they can pay off debts by having more money, if they can invest in education and healthcare, safety, etc. then I do consider that money well spent.
Does this mean the government does not waste money? No, of course they do. There will always be badly invested projects. But should this be a reason to eliminate all investment? I think not, just as companies keep investing, even though there may be a few bad investments. You can always keep someone responsible if an investment is too irresponsible (200 billion for a war, that could've been spent by giving every American decent access to healthcare, anyone?) by voting him or her away.

C ya!

Marty
I totally agree. Great explanation!
__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 09-22-2004, 10:10 AM   #69
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
U2Kitten raises a good point here, most of the time governments simply spend too much money (kompare the military expenses of the US with the next 10 countries for example).
I think taxcuts are ok if you don't have to take debts because of the taxcuts.
It should be the end of a process where the government saves money, not the beginning of a process (and the hope that someone, someday will find a way to save money and pay back the debts . that's irresponsible from my point of view)
Exactly

Not enough money - raise taxes
work hard on managing money well and hold our government responsible for this
Surplus money - lower taxes

We need to keep our deficit down during the Iraq war and the war against terrorism. This spending was not in the budget during the Clinton years. Our countries expenses have gone up because of this and it is irresponsible to reduce taxes until this crisis passes and we see if there is a surplus.

I'm not for raising taxes - I'm against the Bush tax cuts. They need to be corrected back in as I don't think we can afford them.
The swelling deficit speaks for itself.
__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 09-22-2004, 10:13 AM   #70
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Remember all the doomsday talk about the deficits from the Reagan administration. A solid economic base was built so that by the Clinton administration, no one worried about deficits.

A solid economy is far more important that marginal tax rates.
Didn't Bush Sr. introduce new taxes? Was that to offset some of Reagan's tax cuts?

Did taxes rise during the Clinton administration?
__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 09-22-2004, 10:15 AM   #71
The Fly
 
Wild Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 188
Local Time: 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BostonAnne


Didn't Bush Sr. introduce new taxes? Was that to offset some of Reagan's tax cuts?

That's what cost him the election, he backed off his "read my lips no new taxes" campaign promise.
__________________
Wild Angel is offline  
Old 09-22-2004, 10:31 AM   #72
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Wild Angel


That's what cost him the election, he backed off his "read my lips no new taxes" campaign promise.
I remember that, but what I'm trying to get at is that some of Reagan's cuts were reversed in a way by Bush Sr's new taxes.
I'm not sure of the details to confirm that thought though.
__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
Old 09-22-2004, 10:38 AM   #73
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 04:57 PM
Afik Reagan himself reversed some of his taxcuts, than there were Bushs new taxes - and then Clinton was the man who could present a budget which didn't raise new debts.
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-22-2004, 11:31 AM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 10:57 AM
Normal

Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn


OK, you get it your way. Look if there is a candidate who wants to abolish Medicare, Social Security and public funded schools. That should be a good cut in the spending.
That is ridiculous and extreme and you know it. There is a lot of pork and fat that can be cut, the $600 toilet seats and $200 screws are a start. Contractors take advantage of the gov't sometimes because they know they are loaded and don't have a lot of time to check into things. They shoud. Then there are things like subsidies to farmers who raise a certain type of sheep for their wool- this was done in the days of wool army uniforms, which are not used anymore, yet the money still goes out. There is an endless list of crap the gov't pays for and sponsors that could be elimated with a little efficiency.



Quote:
Well, US citizens are not better money managers either... Maybe it is too hard to expect a government to have a balanced budget when the people in the government cannot do it themselves privately.



Marty
Well, I did post that most Americans are in debt and are not good money managers, maybe it's the "American way" I have had terrible problems with debt myself and I have made a lot of mistakes, that's how I can see when others are doing the same.
__________________
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 09-22-2004, 01:35 PM   #75
Refugee
 
BostonAnne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 2,052
Local Time: 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn
OK, you get it your way. Look if there is a candidate who wants to abolish Medicare, Social Security and public funded schools. That should be a good cut in the spending.
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten

That is ridiculous and extreme and you know it.
Marty is pointing out the exact path that Bush is taking, he's not being ridiculous and extreme. I'm not sure about Medicare, but is sure seems to me that Social Security and public funded schools could well be on their way out.

Isn't abolish another word for privatization? I would say that shifting social security to personal accounts is privitizing.
GOP Social Security Agenda

Quote:
Establishing personal accounts does not add to the total costs that Social Security faces. The obligation to pay Social Security benefits is already there. While personal accounts affect the timing of these costs, they do not add to the total amount obligated through Social Security. In fact, every plan scored by SSA that contains personal accounts would, according to actuarial analysis, reduce the costs of permanently fixing the system.
Isn't pushing for all of these options abolishing public funded schools?
GOP Education Agenda

Quote:
Options Available for Parents
Supplemental Services - Using tutoring money provided under NCLB, parents can select from the over 1600 supplemental service providers approved by the states. With this option, parents, for the first time can find a program that is focused, rigorous, and directed at the specific needs of their child.

Faith- and Community-Based Organizations - To expand the options available to parents, more than $1.7 billion per year has been made accessible to faith- and community-based organizations through NCLB, enabling these groups to receive grants and to provide quality supplemental educational services. Faith- and community-based providers can participate in the 21st Century Community Learning Centers after school program, the Title I-Supplemental Educational Services program that provides extra academic help for disadvantaged students, the Early Reading First program, and physical education programs.
You should check the differences in the two plans.
Bush Record vs. Kerry Plan

Lastly, the Kerry campaign isn't just promising to make things better. There is detailed explanations as to how all of the things Kerry/Edwards want to implement will be paid for. I don't find the same details on the GOP sites.
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/policy.html
__________________

__________________
BostonAnne is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com