Support NeoGAF

[Hitokage]

I wasn't referring to any paticular stance in this thread, although I could name three that you have offered to be uninformed. At first you came in confusing the federal budget with the economy, then that the deficit wasn't really a big deal, and now the statement about money becoming stagnant in government. Although I must give credit to Idontknow for giving that 2000 election talking point.

You said you needed to know more about this stuff, but that's when you ask questions.

 

[Idontknow]

Tax refunds are not free money. The more taxes you pay, the more money you should get back.

I don't get how given a tax cut to only the middle and lower classes, helps the economy at the upperclass job levels to expand, so the middle class can eventually move up into the upperclass.

The following site, while being from the late 90s, explains why having debt is a good thing, as long as you use it wisely.

http://web2.airmail.net/scsr/Debt.htm

 

[Phoenix]

I remember Kerry saying that they had the intent of using the surplus for social security.

Either way, there were far better things to spend the surplus on than a tax refund.

Debatable. If there is one thing Bush is correct on, its that keeping taxes low encourages spending and growth. It comes at the cost of inflation over time, but if you need to get yourself out of a short term economy growth bind - having low taxes is one way to do it.

 

[Zaptruder]

Tax refunds are not free money. The more taxes you pay, the more money you should get back.

I don't get how given a tax cut to only the middle and lower classes, helps the economy at the upperclass job levels to expand, so the middle class can eventually move up into the upperclass.

The following site, while being from the late 90s, explains why having debt is a good thing, as long as you use it wisely.

http://web2.airmail.net/scsr/Debt.htm

Well... it seems like debt is ballooning much faster then asset values this time around. And what about giving the middle class enough security to maintain middle classness, before trying to make them upper class (rather then having alot of middle class people fall out of jobs and into the lower class... and maybe a few middle classers moving up)? The middle class will always have technology trickle down effect to expand the value of their wealth

Debatable. If there is one thing Bush is correct on, its that keeping taxes low encourages spending and growth. It comes at the cost of inflation over time, but if you need to get yourself out of a short term economy growth bind - having low taxes is one way to do it.

and yet.... spending is lower now then it was before?

 

[Phoenix]

Tax refunds are not free money. The more taxes you pay, the more money you should get back.

I don't get how given a tax cut to only the middle and lower classes, helps the economy at the upperclass job levels to expand, so the middle class can eventually move up into the upperclass.

The following site, while being from the late 90s, explains why having debt is a good thing, as long as you use it wisely.

http://web2.airmail.net/scsr/Debt.htm

Yes, in the afterschool special version of the world, debt is good. Reality check time. Globalism and trade deficits made debt bad - very very bad. Those two things stunt the growth of the local economy something fierce. Debt that you can't pay down/roll over because you aren't growing the economy (which we aren't) makes the deficit due to interest on debt grow at a fast rate.

Anyone here who has a credit card can do the simply math. If you go and buy something for $1k and you can pay the minimum payments, thats great - you'll pay it off in what 10-15 years or some other nonsense. Cool, you're making money and getting a raise - great - you can afford to have more debt so you go and spend another $5k. Sweet. Oops you got laid off and had to take a job that pays less - the minimum payments are now painful but you still need stuff but you have no opportunity to 'pay down' the debt. You now have a debt:income ratio that sucks ass. This is where the US is now, our debt:income ratio is starting to suck ass, and the more the economy deflates (not deflation itself, but the decrease of the earning power of the average family) you have less money through taxes, less money for programs, etc. Yeah... and your costs don't go down either...

 

[Phoenix]

and yet.... spending is lower now then it was before?

Spending on what? We just left the largest housing boom in decades... Clarify your point of argument.

 

[ge-man]

Debatable. If there is one thing Bush is correct on, its that keeping taxes low encourages spending and growth. It comes at the cost of inflation over time, but if you need to get yourself out of a short term economy growth bind - having low taxes is one way to do it.

I was talking about the refund, not the taxes. I agree that adjusting the taxes helps, although I think that was also handled poorly.

 

[Hitokage]

Debatable. If there is one thing Bush is correct on, its that keeping taxes low encourages spending and growth. It comes at the cost of inflation over time, but if you need to get yourself out of a short term economy growth bind - having low taxes is one way to do it.

The devil is in the details. Who is getting lower taxes, when, and for how long. In Keynesian expansionist recession handling(keyword: recession) you do increase spending and lower taxes, but the mere presence of money spent by government or not received by government is not enough. Of course, Bush's insistence that his cuts be made permanent show that his policy is not keynesian, but rather borrow and spend politics. Bush's tax cuts are not tax cuts at all in the long term. They are putting us into debt that we will have to pay off later.

 

[Triumph]

"What we're gonna do is real simple when you sit down and think about it. We're gonna stop paying down our debt, while at the same time spend more and more, creating new debt as we go. Eventually, we'll lap ourselves and start back at zero. I'm George W. Bush, and I approve this message."

 

[Phoenix]

The devil is in the details. Who is getting lower taxes, when, and for how long. In Keynesian expansionist recession handling you do increase spending and lower taxes, but the mere presence of money spent by government or not received by government is not enough. Of course, Bush's insistence that his cuts be made permanent show that his policy is not keynesian, but rather borrow and spend politics. Bush's tax cuts are not tax cuts at all in the long term. They are putting us into debt that we will have to pay off later.

I agree. Its rolling the dice. Its a hope that kick starting the economy will be able get people employed and spending money - this increasing the available money available through taxation. Its a big gamble that may pay off, may not (though I lean to the not myself). I agree with Kerry's stance that an even percentage tax writeoff is about as dumb as a sack of rocks.


Bush really needs to decide what he wants because he can't have it all. He can't spend as much as it will take to win the war on terror, risk the cuts on jump starting the economy, spend what's necessary to fix health care and social security, and as the same time say that the budget will be balanced... 'if people spend responsibly'. If you want people to spend responsibly - work out a system where people can't vote to go over their spending caps

 

[Zaptruder]

Spending on what? We just left the largest housing boom in decades... Clarify your point of argument.

The question mark is there not to question you.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

"What we're gonna do is real simple when you sit down and think about it. We're gonna stop paying down our debt, while at the same time spend more and more, creating new debt as we go. Eventually, we'll lap ourselves and start back at zero. I'm George W. Bush, and I approve this message."

why do you hate freedom?

 

[Hitokage]

I agree. Its rolling the dice.

I was saying that you need to make the right cuts and the right investments for it to work properly. It's entirely possible to make the wrong cuts and the wrong investments(eg. dumping billions into Iraq).

 

[Idontknow]

Polling has shown that paying off the deficit isn't something most Americans see as a priority. History has already shown that you can have a booming economy, with an out of control deficit. Tax cuts should be bigger and government spending should be lower.

 

[duderon]

Polling has shown that paying off the deficit isn't something most Americans see as a priority. History has already shown that you can have a booming economy, with an out of control deficit. Tax cuts should be bigger and government spending should be lower.

The economy isn't booming right now dude :/

What's with your obsession with giving tax cuts to the rich anyway? It's not like they'd go to the poorhouse with the money the government would take away. Also, government spending will be significant for a long period of time because of the war in iraq, so tax cuts are obviously not the answer.

 

[ShadowRed]

It's not just Bush though. Something like this is directly affected by how Clinton and Bush 1 ran the economy.

WTF are you talkong anout. When Clinton left office there was a buget surplus. This is a direct result of Bushs free money give away and war against the man that tried to kill my Daddy. Shit man you people have to lay off the Bill Clinton hate.

 

[Idontknow]

Tax revenue increased after taxes were cut in the 1920s, 1960s and 1980s. The budget surplus in the late 90s would have been even bigger, if tax rates had been lower in the 90s.

 

[Hitokage]

Tax revenue increased after taxes were cut in the 1920s, 1960s and 1980s. The budget surplus in the late 90s would have been even bigger, if tax rates had been lower in the 90s.

Think long and hard about what you just said.

 

[NohWun]

Some definitions appear to be in order here:

deficit: when the government spends more money than it earns (in one year).

surplus: when the government spends less money than it earns (in one year).

debt: the amount of money the government owes to other entities.


Clinton did not pay off the debt. This country has been in debt for ages, and that will continue for ages.

What Clinton did was to balance spending, such that there was hope to pay off the debt. He turned the government's deficit into a surplus.

Bush blew that out of the water. He's turned the largest budget surplus into this country's largest budget deficit, ever.

For proof, please refer to this file from the US Government Printing Office.
It's part of the "Fiscal Year 2005 Budget of the US Government":

http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/02feb20041242/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/pdf/hist.pdf

This file is linked from here, under "Historical Tables":

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/browse.html

Look at the tables starting on page 21.

 

[NohWun]

Polling has shown that paying off the deficit isn't something most Americans see as a priority. History has already shown that you can have a booming economy, with an out of control deficit. Tax cuts should be bigger and government spending should be lower.

History has shown that the average American doesn't understand what government debt means, and that all they really care about is "what's in it for me?" in the short term. To base economic policy on this kind of attitude is certain doom, akin to going to a casino, spending all your money, thinking that you'll eventually win over the house.

You're an average American.

 

[kevm3]

http://www.chocolatecityweb.com/Funny/obgyn.wmv

Looks like America isn't the only thing Bush is thinking about sucking dry... keep your legs crossed ladies

 

[SyNapSe]

One quick question.

I realize that the government has robbed from services such as Social Security, etc... but that obviously can't account for all of our debt. So, when they raise the debt ceiling.. do they just print extra money?

Or more likely.. do they continue to rob from services, and when people need money from the services.. if nothing is there at the time do they then print money? I guess it's inflationary either way if you can never pay off your debt over time, which doesn't seem likely.

 

[Hitokage]

One quick question.

I realize that the government has robbed from services such as Social Security, etc... but that obviously can't account for all of our debt. So, when they raise the debt ceiling.. do they just print extra money?

Or more likely.. do they continue to rob from services, and when people need money from the services.. if nothing is there at the time do they then print money? I guess it's inflationary either way if you can never pay off your debt over time, which doesn't seem likely.

They take in more money from overseas, and not just our allies.

 

[SyNapSe]

They take in more money from overseas, and not just our allies.

Hmm. Would you mind expounding on that a bit? Do you mean that we borrow money from foreign interests/banks? If so, that sucks. Is there any service that shows to whom and what amounts of money we owe?

 

[Nerevar]

Hmm. Would you mind expounding on that a bit? Do you mean that we borrow money from foreign interests/banks? If so, that sucks. Is there any service that shows to whom and what amounts of money we owe?

China is one of the largest investors in American debt. Kind of scary to think about it, though.

 

[LakeEarth]

Think long and hard about what you just said.

I'm sad that it took me 10 seconds to figure out what you were pointing out. Depressing, really.

 

[Gruco]

Think long and hard about what you just said.

Heh

Couple points to bring up -

1) The laffer curve is a curve, not a straight line. Even if you accept that it was responsible for growth in the eighties (which requires overlooking efforts to fight loopholes, payroll taxes, and contolled long term growth), it's still pretty fucking crazy to imply that the same concept applied in '02.

2) Bush's defeceit/growth ratio is significantly below other historical stimulus attempts. The tax cuts were not designed to stimulate anything (as many have brought up, the diminishing marginal value and propensity to spend issues...), and I for the life of me cannot understand why there wasn't a real public works effort. It's not like there's a like of potential projects.

IIRC, China and Japan are both very high on holders of US debt. Saudi Arabia is up there too, I believe.

 

[Idontknow]

Think long and hard about what you just said.

I thought long and hard and I still don't get it.

 

[Gek54]

eh...deficit doesn't really mean bad economy

 

[Kon Tiki]

Graph from the Bush Video game. Informative game that is.

Why isn't Clinton on a monetary unit by now?

 

[Incognito]

Think long and hard about what you just said.

stock market crash...depression??

 

[myzhi]

"surplus: when the government spends less money than it earns (in one year)."


This seems like a good point. Just a note, I am not a economist or anything like that so heaven forbid if you quote me on it.

When Clinton was in office, we had a booming economy which should make it easier to balance the budget and have a surplus. Now take Bush's term, he inherited a recession + shock of 9/11. Thus, even if Bush did exactly the samething as Clinton, he would probably have a deficit. Also, when people talk about Bush loosing trillions of dollars, I believe that's base on 10 yr projections of continous growth which turns out to be not very accurate.


Given that the economy seems to be continuely picking up, I think whoever wins the election will be in good shape in the next term.

 

[levious]

Discuss this.

My friend claims that with Bush giving the tax cut to the rich, they then in turn pour more money into the economy. But with Kerry, increasing taxes on the top 1% and giving a tax cut to the poor, the poor won't really put much back into the economy thus it will remain stagnant.

Reganomics, trickle down theory... Bush I called it Voodoo Economics before he joined Reagan's ticket, so even he knew it was BS.

 

[Drozmight]

If Japan suddenly decided it wanted to cash in it's portion of our debt, our economy would explode, and burn... burn. Though, neither China, or Japan would want to do that to their biggest trade partner.

 

[Gek54]

"surplus: when the government spends less money than it earns (in one year)."


This seems like a good point. Just a note, I am not a economist or anything like that so heaven forbid if you quote me on it.

When Clinton was in office, we had a booming economy which should make it easier to balance the budget and have a surplus. Now take Bush's term, he inherited a recession + shock of 9/11. Thus, even if Bush did exactly the samething as Clinton, he would probably have a deficit. Also, when people talk about Bush loosing trillions of dollars, I believe that's base on 10 yr projections of continous growth which turns out to be not very accurate.


Given that the economy seems to be continuely picking up, I think whoever wins the election will be in good shape in the next term.

Most sensible post yet!

If Japan suddenly decided it wanted to cash in it's portion of our debt, our economy would explode, and burn... burn. Though, neither China, or Japan would want to do that to their biggest trade partner.

How much do we owe Japan?

 

[levious]

We could just give them Pebble Beach back.

 

[Idontknow]

stock market crash...depression??

I don't get what the Great Depression would have to do with tax revenue increasing overall in the 1920s, after the tax cuts.

On another note, The Great Depression taught us to never raise taxes during a recession. The recession in 1929 would have been short-lived, but the increase in taxes prolonged the downward spiral and even made it worse.

 

[Drozmight]

How much do we owe Japan?

I don't have an exact number, but I know its a very significant amount. In 1998 ~23% of the national debt was owned by foreign countries. Whatever amount of that is Japan, it's billions and billions... so you could imagine what would happen if suddenly the government had to pay hundreds of billions of dollars to Japan.

 

[Gek54]

Yeah, well like you said, they would never call for it and what country would? Worthless post.

 

[Drozmight]

I was just commenting on this...

IIRC, China and Japan are both very high on holders of US debt. Saudi Arabia is up there too, I believe.

About giving tax cuts to the rich though. They're more likely to invest it, rather than spend it, which means there will be greater economic growth.

 

[kevm3]

but do we really need more investing at a time when stocks were heavily overvalued and the market was tumbling because of that? And the rich investing would mainly provide long-term growth, not the short term variety which was being called for.

 

[NohWun]

"surplus: when the government spends less money than it earns (in one year)."


This seems like a good point. Just a note, I am not a economist or anything like that so heaven forbid if you quote me on it.

When Clinton was in office, we had a booming economy which should make it easier to balance the budget and have a surplus. Now take Bush's term, he inherited a recession + shock of 9/11. Thus, even if Bush did exactly the samething as Clinton, he would probably have a deficit. Also, when people talk about Bush loosing trillions of dollars, I believe that's base on 10 yr projections of continous growth which turns out to be not very accurate.


Given that the economy seems to be continuely picking up, I think whoever wins the election will be in good shape in the next term.

That's totally stupid, and ignoring reality. Bush cut the government's income by giving away tax dollars to "his base", the rich, (and a few peanuts to everyone else). Then he went and spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a war against a country that wasn't any threat to us (and failing to get any allies to help us, aside from GB). And that's just the tip of the iceberg. We're spending billions on building a missile defense system that doesn't work. We're giving billions to Cheney's former company to rebuild Iraq's oil fields (among other things). It goes on and on, if you happen to pay attention.

To suggest that "well, there would have been a deficit anyway" as some kind of justification for all this lunacy is just sticking your head into the ground.

 

[Gruco]

About giving tax cuts to the rich though. They're more likely to invest it, rather than spend it, which means there will be greater economic growth.

Not all investments are created equal (that is, stock speculation won't have the same impact as education or R&D expenditures). Nor does top heavy investment slove problems with excess capacity....

 

[myzhi]

That's totally stupid, and ignoring reality. Bush cut the government's income by giving away tax dollars to "his base", the rich, (and a few peanuts to everyone else). Then he went and spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a war against a country that wasn't any threat to us (and failing to get any allies to help us, aside from GB). And that's just the tip of the iceberg. We're spending billions on building a missile defense system that doesn't work. We're giving billions to Cheney's former company to rebuild Iraq's oil fields (among other things). It goes on and on, if you happen to pay attention.

To suggest that "well, there would have been a deficit anyway" as some kind of justification for all this lunacy is just sticking your head into the ground.

Do you understand how the federal government gets revenue? It's simple. The better the economy the more money the government takes in. Thus, even if Clinton was still in office, he would probably have a deficit if he continue with same spending + more for 9/11 stuff because government is taking way less.

Yes, Bush's spending and tax breaks (FOR ALL TAX PAYERS) made the deficit much larger. No agruement there, but there's still going to be a deficit either way. The problem is that people have the illusion that if Gore or etc. were in office the surplus would still be there, and that's false pretense. And, since we had the shortest recession ever and continue growth, think we are in good shape for whoever will be elected next.

 

[NohWun]

Which would you rather have: a small deficit, or the biggest deficit in history, with signs of it getting even bigger?

You'll notice I made no claims of surpluses. Did anyone?

 

[myzhi]

"Which would you rather have: a small deficit, or the biggest deficit in history, with signs of it getting even bigger?

You'll notice I made no claims of surpluses. Did anyone?"


Of course, a small deficit. Just to show how retarded your question is, would you like a shorter or longer recession? Sure you did not exactly spell out surplus, but you did imply deficit was most / all Bush's fault.

 

[NohWun]

No more retarded than trying to justify the biggest deficit in history by saying "Well, there'd be a deficit anyway" (as if you have any special knowledge of alternate realities).