If Obama is elected

[GG]

Note: I believe tax cuts stimulate the economy, but it's more effective to cut taxes on those who spend, not those who save.

 

Then you shouldn't be running around writing papers complaining that the US is a debtor nation that doesn't save enough

 

Of course, Kev is right, low taxes for the whole house. For the working class to keep spending and for the saving class to replenish the sad capital base of US financial institutions.

[molson_golden2002]

Just a little smelling salt:

 

The Congressional Budget Office figures released Tuesday say the flood of red ink will spill over into next year, when the deficit would reach a record $438 billion — and could go even higher as the government takes over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 

The CBO figures for this year are slightly worse than White House predictions released in July. The White House foresees a $389 billion deficit for 2008, growing to $482 billion in 2009.

 

"Today's estimates provide the latest evidence of the fiscal legacy of Republican policies: record deficits and a weak economy," said House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt Jr., D-S.C. "It's another reminder of the dismal economy and budget that Republicans are leaving others to sort out."

 

 

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...=rss-topstories

[DC Tom]

Just a little smelling salt:

 

 

 

 

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...=rss-topstories

 

Utterly predictible situation...and response. "We haven't reigned in spending in the past two years...now we're going to have to spend more before we can fix what the bad bad people did. (Ignore the fact we helped; it's not our fault.)"

 

Yeah, the best case is probably another two trillion in debt before we can begin to balance the budget...but don't blame the other side of the aisle without looking at your own contribution first.

[molson_golden2002]

Utterly predictible situation...and response. "We haven't reigned in spending in the past two years...now we're going to have to spend more before we can fix what the bad bad people did. (Ignore the fact we helped; it's not our fault.)"

 

Yeah, the best case is probably another two trillion in debt before we can begin to balance the budget...but don't blame the other side of the aisle without looking at your own contribution first.

Just saying there is a perfectly resonable reason for increasing the tax rate ever so slightly

[TPS]

Then you shouldn't be running around writing papers complaining that the US is a debtor nation that doesn't save enough

 

Of course, Kev is right, low taxes for the whole house. For the working class to keep spending and for the saving class to replenish the sad capital base of US financial institutions.

 

Might want to look at that again, since I never argued that.

 

As for taxes, I still believe the best solution for the current problem is a temporary cut (10%?) in social security taxes.

 

And yes, everyone got a cut, but the majority of the cuts were skewed toward the top. When demand is the problem, I believe it's more effective to skew the cuts toward the group that spends all of their income.

[VABills]

Just a little smelling salt:

 

 

 

 

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...=rss-topstories

Republicans???? I thought the budget came from congress. I thought congress was controlled by the dems.

 

Am I missing something?

[bills_fan]

Just saying there is a perfectly resonable reason for increasing the tax rate ever so slightly

 

 

Or is there a perfectly good reason for an across-the-board, 5% cut in spending by all Federal agencies, as well as an accounting and justification of every dollar spent else further cuts will be necessary?

[PastaJoe]

Republicans???? I thought the budget came from congress. I thought congress was controlled by the dems.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Yeah, the first 6 years when Bush and the Republican controlled Congress instituted some of the largest growth in gov't spending in our history without paying for it.

[StupidNation]

Yeah, the first 6 years when Bush and the Republican controlled Congress instituted some of the largest growth in gov't spending in our history without paying for it.

 

I agree with you, but in case you forgot the 1st 2 years of Clinton weren't so good either until the Republicans came in. Basically both are spending maniacs when they have control. If Universal Health Care gets established you can write this country off in 2019 or earlier as our debt will be incredibly larger.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I agree with you, but in case you forgot the 1st 2 years of Clinton weren't so good either until the Republicans came in. Basically both are spending maniacs when they have control. If Universal Health Care gets established you can write this country off in 2019 or earlier as our debt will be incredibly larger.

Actually it started with the previous year's budget, but because there were tax increases despite spending increases slowing to help balance the budget Democrats paid a huge price. That being said, a Republican controlled Congress especially having appropriations controlled by budget hawks Delay and Armey combined with Clinton's bureaucracy reductions had the largest impacts.

 

Both sides benefited from large numbers of aging bureaucrats ready for retirement.

[/dev/null]

Both sides benefited from large numbers of aging bureaucrats ready for retirement.

 

Not to mention the .com boom

[jjamie12]

Not to mention the .com boom

And extremely low oil prices, too... Don't forget about the low oil (commidities in general, I suppose) prices.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

And extremely low oil prices, too... Don't forget about the low oil (commidities in general, I suppose) prices.

 

That was in large part due to Clinton, he cagoled the mideast sheiks and threatened large releases of the SPR, in fact he did it at least once.

 

A strong dollar helped to, due to the .com boom and lowering deficit and lower interest rates.

[PastaJoe]

And extremely low oil prices, too... Don't forget about the low oil (commidities in general, I suppose) prices.

 

And we weren't spending $10 billion a month on an unnecessary occupation, plus the cost of replacing all the military equipment.

[jjamie12]

That was in large part due to Clinton, he cagoled the mideast sheiks and threatened large releases of the SPR, in fact he did it at least once.

I'll admit that I'm a little fuzzy on this exact quote here, but I find it incredibly hard to believe that this was "... in large part due to Clinton." In fact, it sounds like complete and total bs to me, but, admittedly, I don't have anything really solid to back it up with, other than a fundamental understanding of economics and the fact that, for at least today, I have my sanity.

 

I'm open to being convinced, though.

[bills_fan]

I agree with you, but in case you forgot the 1st 2 years of Clinton weren't so good either until the Republicans came in. Basically both are spending maniacs when they have control. If Universal Health Care gets established you can write this country off in 2019 or earlier as our debt will be incredibly larger.

 

 

The past 20 or so years has convinced me that it means nothing but bad things for our wallets when one party (either one) controls both Congress and the White House.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

The past 20 or so years has convinced me that it means nothing but bad things for our wallets when one party (either one) controls both Congress and the White House.

[StupidNation]

The past 20 or so years has convinced me that it means nothing but bad things for our wallets when one party (either one) controls both Congress and the White House.

 

The taught me that I don't trust either party. Lobbyists should be abolished. Look at how McInsane and Obamination were big on getting AT&T for privacy violations, now they want to move forward. Huh? Well then again AT&T helped sponsor the DNC, and gave McInsane $270k or some such number. Neither party really has the interests of the nation.

 

If people want small government who can they vote in? Even Reagan appeased too much with the Dem Congress.

 

Oh well... there's always the bright days of AT&T of China, Walmart of Hong Kong, and Nasdaq of Kuwait to look forward to. Maybe I can get food stamps in 20 years... oh wait... there will be no money for anyone in that fund.

 

The 2 party system: It's one more than China

[PastaJoe]

If people want small government who can they vote in? Even Reagan appeased too much with the Dem Congress.

 

Ron Paul.

[Taro T]

That was in large part due to Clinton, he cagoled the mideast sheiks and threatened large releases of the SPR, in fact he did it at least once.

 

A strong dollar helped to, due to the .com boom and lowering deficit and lower interest rates.

Hindsight being 20/20, it would have been better that he begin filling the SPR when prices began to dip below $18/barrel; which would have had the dual effect of increasing the SPR rather inexpensively and delaying OPEC getting serious about maintaining their quotas. When oil was in the low $20's OPEC didn't seem to have much resolve; when it fell to ~$12, they got serious.

 

Prices still would have eventually gone up due to increased demand in Asia, but possibly not as much and most likely not as soon. (Which also would have had the side benefit of keeping some money out of the pockets of Chavez and Putin.)