What caused the deficit?

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Good to know McCain wants to continue the same BS economic plan Bush implemented. He probably wouldnt if, you know, he understand basic economics..which he admits he doesnt.


from Klein:


WHAT MADE THE DEFICIT?


In 2000, economists saw surpluses far into the future. The basic prediction was that, in 2009, we'd be running a $710 billion surplus. In reality, we're going to see a $546 billion deficit. That's a $1.3 trillion deterioration in federal finances since Bush took office. There are, as you'd expect, a fair number of excuses. Bad economy. Terrorism. The hand of God, in other words, which reached into our treasury and grabbed out the cash. But the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities took a look at the numbers and found that the change in fiscal future was not, in fact, an act of nature. It was an outcome of policy.


This massive deterioration is partly due to weaker-than-expected performance of the economy, along with other 'technical' factors that are beyond policymakers’ control. But these economic and technical factors account for less than one-fourth of the fiscal deterioration for each period, and they are not responsible for the return of deficits. Even given the disappointing performance of the economy since 2001 relative to CBO’s earlier projections, there would have been large surpluses in every year — totaling $3.4 trillion over the 2002-2011 period — if policymakers had enacted no tax cuts or program increases since 2001.

The dominant factor in the unprecedented fiscal deterioration thus was not the performance of the economy. Nor was it increases in domestic programs. The key factors have been large tax cuts and increases in security-related programs. For fiscal 2009, some $1 trillion of the $1.3 trillion deterioration in the nation’s fiscal finances stems from policy actions, and tax cuts account for 42 percent of this $1 trillion deterioration.

[Rohirrim]

It wasn't me.

[Garcia Bronco]

Sounds like programs needed to be cut to me.

[sisterhellfyre]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

For fiscal 2009, some $1 trillion of the $1.3 trillion deterioration in the nation’s fiscal finances stems from policy actions, and tax cuts account for 42 percent of this $1 trillion deterioration.

"Mission accomplished" for the Republicans, in other words.

I don't know how many times I've heard Republican commentators and so-called "economists" repeat that "Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter." Their basic approach to the federal government over the last eight years has been to treat it like a giant candy jar full of dollars. They can reach in and give handfuls to themselves, their friends and each other whenever they like -- which has been both frequently and excessively.

The problem is still growing, but beginning to take shape in banks and financial markets across Southeast Asia and around the world, where the financial managers of the national banks that hold so much American debt are starting to realize that our political establishment has NO intention of EVER paying back the debt. Our fearlessly greedy leaders in DC roll over the debt, over and over again, in a giant Ponzi scheme that is still growing. The proceeds from the latest investors go to pay the immediate debts due to the first investors... and the only hope of the latest investors to ever get their money back depends solely on finding still more suckers -- er, investors -- to keep the scheme going.

It has only worked this long because the federal government has become such a huge debtor to so many places that they literally can't allow our government to go bankrupt. The consequences would be enormous across the entire integrated world economy. But still... in back offices in Singapore, Beijing, Tokyo, and other places... Dubai, Moscow and Riyadh... there are national bank officers, sovereign wealth fund managers, and other financial authorities starting to say "What if...?"

If enough of those whisperers start to come out of the shadows into the daylight right now, in addition to the ongoing credit/mortgage crisis... that's when things could get really ugly.

Regards,
m.

[MO<1>]

Many things besides George Bush caused the deficit- but that is the easy way out. Getting out of it is alot harder. Send Obama friends in Fanny Mae and Lehman brothers to jail. Teach our citizens not to spend more than the earn on luxuries. Quit supporting and handholding with totalitarian regimes where workers earn 50 cents a day while working with state-of-the-art equipment. Quit handouts to Senators and Congressmen that only encourages to hand out money to donaters. Throw out the nearly 67,000 page tax program and adopt a flat tax due to all the other modern industrialized countries. Few countries are suffering as much political corruption as the US.

Did you see the Obama earmark request to help fat people in his congressional district lose weight? Is this the federal government's job? It is if you want to pay for it.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by MO<1>

Many things besides George Bush caused the deficit- but that is the easy way out. Getting out of it is alot harder. Send Obama friends in Fanny Mae and Lehman brothers to jail. Teach our citizens not to spend more than the earn on luxuries. Quit supporting and handholding with totalitarian regimes where workers earn 50 cents a day while working with state-of-the-art equipment. Quit handouts to Senators and Congressmen that only encourages to hand out money to donaters. Throw out the nearly 67,000 page tax program and adopt a flat tax due to all the other modern industrialized countries. Few countries are suffering as much political corruption as the US.

Did you see the Obama earmark request to help fat people in his congressional district lose weight? Is this the federal government's job? It is if you want to pay for it.

I love how you take facts and completely ignore them. And a flat tax is incredibly unfair for the poor

[sisterhellfyre]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

And a flat tax is incredibly unfair for the poor

I'm sorry, SOLLL, but I'm going to have to ask you to explain that one. I've heard it asserted so many times that a "flat tax is unfair to the poor," and it just makes no sense to me. Would you explain your reasoning behind that assertion?

Regards,
m.

[MO<1>]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

I love how you take facts and completely ignore them. And a flat tax is incredibly unfair for the poor

Get your facts from the Harvard elite:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1866.cfm

Under a flat tax, the rich do pay more than the poor.

Fairness. A flat tax would treat people equally. A wealthy taxpayer with 1,000 times the taxable income of another taxpayer would pay 1,000 times more in taxes. No longer would the tax code penal­ize success and discriminate against citizens on the basis of income. Tax burdens would no longer depend on the number of lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants on the payroll.

How do the poor afford lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants. Check it out, you might be surprised. Both McCain and Obama are offering more of the same 66,480 pages of tax code. All they are changing are rates and exemptions.

[Bob]

Republican leadership 75%
Dem leadership 25%
Idiots --- 100%

Solution? Not Obama, Not McCain, or Biden

Maybe Palin

Definately Ron Paul...

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by sisterhellfyre

I'm sorry, SOLLL, but I'm going to have to ask you to explain that one. I've heard it asserted so many times that a "flat tax is unfair to the poor," and it just makes no sense to me. Would you explain your reasoning behind that assertion?

Regards,
m.

Simply put, though it sounds fair, a tax rate that is similar (lets say 15 percent) might not make a difference to the rich guy whos life style won't change, but for someone where every dollar counts, he'll probably be taxed at a rate higher than normal to acheive the correct amount of funding. Therefore, it makes sense for the person with no money to keep as much as possible and the people with excess to give more as it won't cramp their lifestyle

[MO<1>]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

Simply put, though it sounds fair, a tax rate that is similar (lets say 15 percent) might not make a difference to the rich guy whos life style won't change, but for someone where every dollar counts, he'll probably be taxed at a rate higher than normal to acheive the correct amount of funding. Therefore, it makes sense for the person with no money to keep as much as possible and the people with excess to give more as it won't cramp their lifestyle

Under Pres Bush's plan, it was a consumption based (Value Added Tax) similiar to the EU- not base on income but how much you spend. The rate is not based on how much you earn or how much you hide in a flat tax, but then you are not penalized for investing or saving. Do you need me to post the link again?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

I love how you take facts and completely ignore them.

Is there any other way to be a republican at this juncture?

If he had to look at the facts you posted, his head would explode from the cognitive dissonance.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by MO<1>

Under Pres Bush's plan, it was a consumption based (Value Added Tax) similiar to the EU- not base on income but how much you spend. The rate is not based on how much you earn or how much you hide in a flat tax, but then you are not penalized for investing or saving. Do you need me to post the link again?

A value added tax isnt a general flat tax

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Though i wouldnt mind a value added tax to fund something like healthcare

[MO<1>]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

A value added tax isnt a general flat tax

I reccomend you read up on tax systems before posting against them.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1866.cfm

The real arguement is the current tax system hinders the nations growth and limits the chance of ever getting out of debt. That is the opinion of Harvard economists.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by MO<1>

I reccomend you read up on tax systems before posting against them.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1866.cfm

The real arguement is the current tax system hinders the nations growth and limits the chance of ever getting out of debt. That is the opinion of Harvard economists.

You know what else will never get us out of debt? Severe tax cuts

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

You know what else will never get us out of debt? Severe tax cuts

Sounds like you're arguing with another wingnut who doesn't remember how trickle-down economics worked out for America the last time around.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by MO<1>

I reccomend you read up on tax systems before posting against them.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1866.cfm

The real arguement is the current tax system hinders the nations growth and limits the chance of ever getting out of debt. That is the opinion of Harvard economists.

And after reading that article again, it still doesn't address my main concern for the flat tax. That article pretty much is a perfect scenario type article which can be written about lots of economic tax plans.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Now I might have missed it, but where does it mention a value added tax in there? Unless im misunderstanding what a VA tax is, but i didnt see it mentioned in there and its total consumption based...granted i read fast as I saw it was just a flat tax propaganda article

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Sounds like programs needed to be cut to me.

The first program I would cut would be the Bush tax cuts to the
wealthy. I would restore them to the level they were when
Ronald Reagan was president.

[spdirty]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

What caused the deficit?

We spent more than we had and had coming in.

[spdirty]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

The first program I would cut would be the Bush tax cuts to the
wealthy. I would restore them to the level they were when
Ronald Reagan was president.

you would cut that before you would cut the ****ing mating habits of alaskan king crabs or whatever the **** it was?

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by spdirty

you would cut that before you would cut the ****ing mating habits of alaskan king crabs or whatever the **** it was?

Who am I to deny biologists their pornography?

[spdirty]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Who am I to deny biologists their pornography?

then let biologists spend their own ****in money to figure that out. Or let the fisheries pay them to do it if it means so much to em.

I hate shlt like that, no matter who it comes from.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by spdirty

then let biologists spend their own ****in money to figure that out. Or let the fisheries pay them to do it if it means so much to em.

I hate shlt like that, no matter who it comes from.

But just to be serious, crab fishing is a million dollar industry that employs
hundreds of people. So studying their behavior could potentially generate
increased profits. Most of this kind of research is done by college students
earning a PHD, so they learn something, and it also benefits the rest of
us in the long run. I just don't understand this anti-science, anti-education
bias by the right. China, Japan, South Korea, India are cleaning our
clock economically because they do take science and education seriously.