Middle Class Report

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
nbcrusader said:
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.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
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)

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!! :banghead: 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!
 
Last edited:
Popmartijn said:


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 said:




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 said:
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.

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
 
U2Kitten said:
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
 
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)
 
Popmartijn said:


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!
 
Klaus said:
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.
 
nbcrusader said:
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 said:


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 said:


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.
 
Popmartijn said:


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.



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" :rolleyes: 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.
 
Popmartijn[/i] [B]OK said:

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

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

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
 
I hate having an overload of classes right now, and this conference I'm getting ready for, because I'd love to dive into this. It's such an important topic and I feel like the hard-right conservatives have really damaged the social contract in our country. Counterintuitively, they have low income folks actaully voting to reduce the social servies they need. And don't get me started on poverty and homlessness in one of the world's wealthiest nations.

I hate to post and run, but I thought I'd offer this wonderful, detailed, and clear essay by the economist Paul Krugman on the subject. It exposes what folks like Grover Norquist--in Norquists's own words!--are really up to in their campaing to demonize any and all taxation. It also exposes the fact that Norquist and Co knew it was bad economically when they sold it for Regan.

Krugman's "The Tax-Cut Con"--a long read, but well worth it for folks really interested in digging into this issue.

http://www.faireconomy.org/econ/taxes/KrugmanTaxCutCon.html

SD
 
U2Kitten said:


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.

I agree that there is a lot of pork and fat that can be cut. That should be looked at before raising taxes. Getting tax cut after tax cut because we don't think we can hold the government accountable isn't going to solve the problem. The pork and fat isn't cut - all we are doing is building up a deficit.
 
BostonAnne said:
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

Isn't pushing for all of these options abolishing public funded schools?
GOP Education Agenda


Giving seniors an option for retirement is "abolishing" social security? Ridiculous. Its called CHOICE. Something I would think the DNC would embrace.

And I don't see where you draw the "abolish public funded schools" when your link highlights a 48% increase in education spending.
 
nbcrusader said:


Giving seniors an option for retirement is "abolishing" social security? Ridiculous. Its called CHOICE. Something I would think the DNC would embrace.

If the goal is to privatize social security - isn't it eventually going to be abolished?

nbcrusader said:

And I don't see where you draw the "abolish public funded schools" when your link highlights a 48% increase in education spending.

I may have misinterpreted public funded schools as public schools. When I read the part about options available for parents, I see all of the other choices that parents can use instead of public schools.

Of course, if the prior year budgets have amounts not spent - then part of the 48% is catching up. Also, if it hasn't been spent before - who is to say that it will be spent now? NCLB has not been managed well at all.

http://www.democrats.org/contrasts/index.html
George Bush failed to provide the promised resources necessary for schools to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act, underfunding his own law by $27 billion. As a result, Bush is punishing schools instead of rewarding them.

GOP is confirming that the money isn't being spent.
http://www.gop.com/GOPAgenda/AgendaPage.aspx?id=3
Unspent Federal Funds Available -- No Child Left Behind has made significant new resources available to states and local school districts, but some states and school districts have not been able to take full advantage of these resources. According to the Department of Education, as of December 11, 2003, a total of nearly $6 billion in Federal education funds remained unspent, waiting to be drawn down by state officials. These funds are from amounts appropriated in 2000 through 2002.
 
Last edited:
Giving a private option for social security does not take away the existing public program.

The same is true for parent options in education.

Where are all the pro-choice people????

And the quotes clearly show the misrepresentation by the DNC - NCLB is not underfunded, it is under-utilized by state officials.
 
nbcrusader said:
Giving a private option for social security does not take away the existing public program.

The same is true for parent options in education.

Where are all the pro-choice people????

And the quotes clearly show the misrepresentation by the DNC - NCLB is not underfunded, it is under-utilized by state officials.

Some people can't afford a choice. Instead of working on getting our systems fine tuned - we are letting everyone out expect the ones that can't afford it. The choice of a program left will still have all of the problems it always had. If we make our systems great, why do people need the choice in the first place?

If choice can really benefit all - then I'm all for it.
 
nbcrusader said:
And the quotes clearly show the misrepresentation by the DNC - NCLB is not underfunded, it is under-utilized by state officials.

Honestly, I'm not an expert - but I don't see Dread having warm and cozy feelings for NCLB AND that he finds the Bush administration responsible. Hopefully he'll pipe in and prove my point or shut me up. :D
 
BostonAnne said:
Some people can't afford a choice. Instead of working on getting our systems fine tuned - we are letting everyone out expect the ones that can't afford it. The choice of a program left will still have all of the problems it always had. If we make our systems great, why do people need the choice in the first place?

If choice can really benefit all - then I'm all for it.

That is where vouchers come in. It give those who cannot afford education options a choice.

Under the current system, the legislatures who should be improving the system are often the ones sending their kids to private schools.

And, it appears that even teachers lose faith in the public system.
 
Do the schools get paid directly or do you deduct what you spent on your tax return?

nbc, please go back & follow the responses to your comments about Reagan. In summary - it is said that Reagan reversed tax cuts and Bush Sr introduced new taxes. So it sounds like Reagan's tax cuts didn't work like you were indicating.
 
Back
Top Bottom