Bush: Balance the budget

We need to reform Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid so future generations of Americans can benefit from these vital programs without bankrupting our country.

These are things that "should" have been dealt with already. As well as the immigration issue, Katrina, health care, and so many other at home issues yet all I see mentioned is this "war on terror" which how you can balance the budget with that kind of cost is beyond me.

For you Clinton-bashers who contend that he left the nation with a lap full of problems, just look at what Mr. Bush will leave us. Forced austerity ("starve the beast" that didn't work because him and his Republican colleagues were in charge and chose to engage in a spending orgy over 6 years all the while slashing upper-bracket taxes while waging:), an ill-conceived and ill-fought war with no end in sight (at least if Mr. Bush completely ignores the will of the people and sends more troops to Iraq), structural deficits as far as the eye can see, falling wages, growing income equality, the unraveling of the housing boom... hmmmmm, can we start over again at January 2001 PLEASE?

If there's one thing Republicans know nothing about, it's balancing the budget.

Well...

All of the sudden Bush wants to work together. The democrats have been talking about balancing the budget for the last 2 years and Clinton had it balanced before Bush took office. This is just part of his game now that he's outnumbered.

"Bush took aim at "dead-of-the-night'' budget deals that funnel billions of dollars to special projects without any oversight, and he vowed that the government will produce a balanced budget by 2012 -- four years after he leaves office. Facing a Democratic-controlled Congress for his remaining two years as president, Bush said today: "It's time to set aside politics and focus on the future.'' "

Wow.

This one makes me even sicker than the 'Bipartisan' blog above this one. I really am losing breakfast now, and may not eat lunch.

Or, it looks like he may be attacking the Republican lead congress of the last 12 years?

Is he thinking 'legacy'??

This is a drowning man trying to grab on to anything to save himself. Too late.

Pardon me while I choke on the irony.

Is this the same president who essentially told the Democrats to take a hike two years ago when he declared that he had acquired "political capital" and was going to spend it?

I believe -- and have always believed -- that the two parties should work towards compromises in furthering the interests of the country to any extent possible. But this faux statesmanship from Mr. Bush (the king of go-it-alone, damn-the-opposition and screw-multi-lateralism) is galling. His hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.

I am flabbergasted that this sort of propaganda can be "reported" with a straight face. For the barest example, consider Bush's statement: "Over the past few years, pro-growth economic policies have generated higher revenues." That's simply not true, in fact it is a lie. Federal government revenues are at record lows because Bush has repeatedly cut taxes on the wealthiest of the wealthy. When something like this is said, it constitutes something we like to call a "lie." When it is repeated by a reporter as though it were true, it is called a "damn lie."

Gee, why do you think he didn't put the same pressure and public scrutiny on Congress when it was in Republican hands and racked up record deficits?

So NOW he realizes that voters care about the budget deficit? Where was this concern three years ago? Over $349 billion has been spent on the war in Iraq so far. Think maybe that has something to do with it?

I about fell out of my chair. Bush calling for a balanced budget? We've got to remind him that he had a budget that was generating a surplus when he came into power and immediately sent Americans what amounted to a bribe for going peacefully into that good night as James Baker fixed things for him in Florida. And, he forgets to mention that the Congress that did all of this was a Republican Congress. In one year, 2005, the Republican led Congress created more pork in one session than during the entire 8 years of the Clinton administration. Bush hasn't cut the deficit in half; the figures put out by his administration at the start of 2005 were recognized to be inflated precisely to help pull the wool over the eyes of the Americans most of whom are so far in debt that they can't even be saved by zero. "It's time to set aside politics?"
Is that what he's been doing this entire time? I can't wait to see his State of the Union Address. It ought to be the best 60 minutes of comedy of the year.

Mission Accomplished George. Don't worry, the Chinese will help us get out of this mess. Perhaps they'll even help devise a "Mao" Plan to help us re-build economically.

Beltway Greg.

Where has Bush been the last 6 years? I don't recall such ideas being directed to fellow Republicans who have controlled Congress for the last 6 years? How can the public possibly take him seriously?

This from a President who has made unprecedented use of the Signing Statement to selectively pick and choose what laws he wishs to use or sidestep. Not to mention the untold billions of dollars spent on and in Iraq which have not played any part of past or future budgets. For the Presidency to keep that money off-the-table, then talk about tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, is beyond the realm of any common sense. When there is no accountability in the leadership of the country, who can expect Congress to reign in the controls and place the country back on sound, fiscal ground?

I wish you lefties would just stop it with the "tax cuts were only for the wealthy" crap already. And to think you accuse us of just repeating party talking points...

I will readily agree that this so-called Republican Congress screwed up any advantage the tax cuts brought us by spending like drunken-sailor Democrats. Bush is equally to blame for refusing to veto even a single pork-barrel project. I'd say that this issue, more than the war, is what lost the GOP the congress because it erroded support among conservatives. These jokers were elected to be conservatives and that's not how they behaved. Is it any wonder why so many Democrats sounded like fiscal conservatives leading up to the election? Now that they've been spanked, perhaps the GOP will remember what got them elected in the first place.

Balancing the budget does nothing towards paying down the debt. This country needs a national sales tax on all goods except food and clothing, for the sole purpose of balancing the debt. 100% of the tax shall go to the banks, with no administrative charges. I propose three percent at the cash register, with no itemization.

Balancing the budget was something that should have continued after President Clinton achieved that goal. Instead Bush told everyone to go have a party and let future generation (yet unborn) worry about it.

Shame on America, as we now have to pay the communists by way of Wal-Mart and Harbor Freight.

"When there is no accountability in the leadership of the country, who can expect Congress to reign in the controls and place the country back on sound, fiscal ground?

Posted by: Bill | Jan 3, 2007 11:17:19 AM"

Bill,
Well said.

Hey, if you are new here you may want to add an initial as there is another Bill we all love very much, but attack whenever possible.
I don't think you are him.

bill r. already exists, also.

I can't believe that President Bush could make a public request for fiscal restraint with a straight face. In the first 6 years of his presidency, he didn't veto a single spending bill. Right before the last election, he signed a bill containing over 6,000 earmarks, mainly benefiting Republican districts. Only now that the Democrats control Congress does he want to cap spending. And he calls this bipartisanship. The man is an idiot.

I think George should write a great big check from his personal accounts as a one time donation to restore the balanced budget he wrecked. If that's not enough, maybe some other family members and anyone else who has benefited from his time in office (Dick Cheney, perhaps, or anyone else in the Carlyle Group) could make up the difference.

After all, they broke it. They should buy it.

We are in to '1984' room 101 on this one. Every line drips with revisionism. It's hard to know where to begin.

Do he and Karl really think the American people have forgotten the last 6 years?

Here is one to note:
" It will address the most urgent needs of our nation, in particular the need to protect ourselves from radicals and terrorists"

Are we now targeting 'radicals' as well as terrorists? What criteria will determine a radical? This is a substantial escalation of our permanent war, isn't it?

I'm ok now.
Having lunch and enjoying.

What a joke.

After W. spends us into oblivion he calls for a balanced budget?

It's a shame that we have this immoral, hipicritical man as the leader of our Nation!

For the past six years I believe we have all witnessed an un-godly amount of selfishness from this man and his Administration. Now he wants to play nice and "work together" with Democrats.It is really a shame that,in this man position in life he some how still believes that he will not be held accountable for his actions. I say make the man accountable for his actions,for preying on the emotions of the American public to go to war, for spending Billions upon Billions of dollars recklessly that could have been better spent revitalizing our Country, for letting 9/11 happen on his watch, for not going after the men and organization resposible.

I say the american public should all voice their right to IMPEACH this President!

I leave you a Quote from the Declaration of Independence.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

REMEMBER HISTORY AND KING "GEORGE" III....

This would be so much funnier if Mr. Bush understood the meaning of the word "irony," but I suspect that vocabulary is lost on him.

Glad you have discovered the power of a balanced budget after you took a surplus handed to you by your predecessor and turned into the largest deficits and highest debt this nation has ever seen. Oh, and the best part is he hope to do this balancing act by... drumroll please... 4 years after he leaves office. Way to go Mr. President, you have left the nation a fine fine mess.

A pumped up version of this speech appeared in the WSJ today. The print version included these sentiments from President Bush:
"The majority pary in Congress gets to pass the bills it wants. The minority party, especially where the margins are close, has a strong say in the form the bills take. And the Constitution leaves it to the president to use his judgement whether they should be signed into law.
That gives us a clear challenge and an opportunity. If the Congress chooses to pass bills that are simply political statements, they will have chosen stalemate. If a different approach is taken, the next two years can be fruitful ones for the nation."
Read:
"Your majority is slim, and I have the veto power, so dont get any funny ideas there. My way or the highway."
What a way to set the tone for the next legislative session - sabre rattling the veto pen and threats of creating another do-nothing Congress.
Nice, Mr. President. Thats what the nation truly needs now.

I guess even Bush acknowledges that the Republican controlled congress was incapable of passing a balanced budget, so now that the adults are back in charge, we can start budgeting sanely again.

Well, it's either that, or the man has no shame what so ever and is going to pretend that somehow the budget mess is the Democrats fault.

George is going to cut taxes, spend billions more on his war, and get a balanced budget? Right. After that, he'll be turning some water into wine? What a sorry excuse for a president.

I am definetley not a democrat, but I do have to agree that President Bush is singing a different song. The song of "Eat Crow".

I had a question.... We had a balanced budget under President Clinton. How well did we keep within that budget? Budgets dont me anything if you dont keep within the boundaries.

"Bush took aim at "dead-of-the-night'' budget deals that funnel billions of dollars to special projects without any oversight, and he vowed that the government will produce a balanced budget by 2012 -- four years after he leaves office."

Bwa hahahaha. This article was sickeningly hysterical, if I didn't look at the masthead, I would think I was reading the Onion. No one knows exactly how much money is being spent on the Iraq War, and it's not included in the deficit anyway. And it's easy to say you'll produce results 4 years after you leave - then you can just point the finger at your successor and say it was their fault.

Oh, NOW he's Mr. Fiscal-Responsibility that the Democrats have beaten his party into the minority. 6 Long years and not a peep about a balanced budget. Thankfully, we have Democrats to clean up his mess.

Poor misguided soul he is. I can't believe the words "balanced budget" actually came out of his mouth! Good luck! As someone somewhere else once said, "everything he says sounds like a goose farting through a harmonica."
How bout bigger tax cuts for us lower-income folks huh?

Hey "no name", Bush's tax cuts WERE very much in favor of the wealthy. My god, do a 2-second search and prove it to yourself. As just one example, in 2004, the upper 1% saw a 19% decline in federal income taxes, while the middle 20% of earners saw a decrease of 4%. Combine this with the fact--yes, fact--that wages have been flat (especially when viewed in the light of the ever-increasing cost of living), and that income has shifted up from lower wage earners to higher wage earners, and that a there has been a shift from wages to profit, and you've got yourself classic conservative (i.e. Reagan) economics. That is, screw the middle class, and bleed it dry.

How the man can speak in front of the people and keep a straight face utterly perplexes me. At lease we know when the president has lied judging by the fact his mouth was open.

Lets see:
$5.3T surplus by 2012, Currently at $3T deficit, a swing of $8.6T. All under a Republican controlled government, POTUS, House, Senate. Nobody else to blame here.

4 times in 5 years the congress agreed to raise the acceptable debt limit. These raises have doubled the acceptable debt limit! The interest associated with said debt is growing at an unprecedented rate.

The world economic forum as reduced the US's position in competitiveness from first to sixth! A major justification for this downgrade is the 45% of our debt currently held by foreign countries...something which can have a very destabilizing effect on our economy.

All the while, and without a single veto over spending, the man as presided over funding things like the WAR we were falsely led to engaging, tax cuts we can't afford, and bridges to nowhere in Alaska (A benefit to a Republican lawmaker's state I will add.) The budget cuts they claim credit for were nothing more than a hastened effort to pay off the tax cuts to a very few, very rich, people. And yes somehow we are now being sold another false reality in that this spending was in the name of fiscal responsibility.

I used to think Mr. Bush wore rose colored glasses, but I am now of the impression some of the recent congressional pork spending included budgetary appropriations to install rose colored window panes on The White House. I'd stop short of impeachment calls considering who is #2!

If you look at who spent what in terms of spending, you will see that roughly 80% of all federal debt was signed by a Republican President. I would suggest that it's time for the Dems to rack up some spending equality. We need better schools, we need more teachers, we need better healthcare (and if we'd listened to Hillary in '93, we'd be paying less for healthcare today), we need better infrastructure, we need better environmental controls, we need a growing economy (one that's growing INSIDE the USA). This can all be done while balancing the deficit if we just went back to Clinton Era tax policy. Yet, the Repubs would have us cringing in fear. Do the math, we have a higher probability of dying in a car crash as a result of swerving to miss a pot hole than dying in a terrorist attach.

Yeah, but the ultimate in chutzpah is the lone conservative daring to post here with mumbo-jumbo inferring that Democrats are natural big spenders and Republicans tight-fisted budget-balancers. That has not been true for over a generation now. The last Republican President who actually understood anything about budget discipline (and the last one for whom I voted, not coincidentally) just died at 93. R.I.P., Jerry. If only we'd known then what we know now.

Cutting taxes without worrying about deficits promotes excessive spending. We have seen this with every combination of Congressional control now. Republicans will have no credibility on budgets until they are willing to admit that there is no such thing as a "tax cut" without equal spending cuts. What they have passed are tax postponements, passed on to future taxpayers with interest. Such sheer irresponsibility has been the essence of Republican "budgeting" for over a quarter-century.

Balance the budget by 2012 ?? This person cannot be serious.After all the spending in the last six years he wants to balance the budget AFTER he is out of office? Can he do that from Paraguay? The guy is a joke.

"It's time to set aside politics"? The moron had his own party in power since he took office.

Not one positive posting on behalf of GWB.
Even no name's post, though combative, is negative toward the Republics and GWB.

Nomo,

"Republicans will have no credibility on budgets until they are willing to admit that there is no such thing as a "tax cut" without equal spending cuts. What they have passed are tax postponements, passed on to future taxpayers with interest. Such sheer irresponsibility has been the essence of Republican "budgeting" for over a quarter-century."

Posted by: Nomo Stew | Jan 3, 2007 3:55:07 PM

Excellent point. I would argue that you cannot "cut taxes" when you are running a budget deficit in the first place. Therefore, "tax giveaway" or as you stated, "tax postponement" is a more apropos terminology.

If Democrats are "tax and spend" (though it was earlier pointed out that label is rather outdated) then the Republicans are "borrow and spend." I know which one I prefer.

Can we go back to January 2001 and have a do-over. George Bush and balanced budget in the same sentence... oh lord my sides are splitting!

I can't in any way, shape, or form, understand why Bush is now concerned about federal spending and is asking for the Democrat controlled Congress for help in getting things under control. Why can't Bush just tell the American people that the Republicans screwed things up royally and now he wants the Democrats to fix the mess. Of course, now it will be the Democrats fault if programs are cut or taxes increased. I hope that the American people are smart enough to realize that Bush and Rove are itching to twist the Republican created mess into something they can blame on the Democrats.

New monikers:

Rebublicans: Borrow and Spend
George W Bush: Pollyana-in-Chief

C. Morris brings up a good point, where are our supply-side kool-aid drinking friends, most notably Terry, Paulo and John D/JD???

Bush continues to amaze me. I suppose he's fighting off any potential future challengers to his title of "Worst President in US History."

Of course, Bush's encore to blaming Democrats for the budget deficits will be blaming them for "Losing the War in Iraq" when some brave soul finally extricates us from that quagmire.

""It's time to set aside politics"? The moron had his own party in power since he took office.

Posted by: Bud McFarlin | Jan 3, 2007 4:29:45 PM"

Bud,

Right!
Nothing he said in this 'babbling book' makes any sense. He's talking like the Dems have been picking on him for 6 years. He has held nearly complete power.

You wonder what prescription Karl has to give GWB every morning just to keep him animated.

This could be the 'poison legacy pill' addressed to the next Democratic president.

'It's like this, see! I have ruined the 'Bush Dynasty Legacy', see! Jeb can't run in '08 because the country hates us all, see! So we start to blame the 08 Dem winner now, see! Plant some bouncing betties now, see! Then Jeb sweeps in to save the country in 12, see!'

Just when I was holding lunch down. Now dinner is in jeopardy.

There political calculations are so transparent. Like an old first gen. computer/tab machine you can stay ahead of the whole unpleasant, algorithm.

I'll confess to budget mania: I'm more interested in a balanced budget than in any other issue or in either party, and have been for my entire voting life. It's the one thing government can actually do on its own, so it's the first thing it should get right.

But I still thought, before now, that Democrats could make political hay by proposing that balanced budget amendment Newt and co. said they would pass. (It was, after all, part of the Contract on America - I think I have that right, in substance, anyway.)

Maybe there is less advantage now that Bush has done his 540 (180 just doesn't do it justice), but it still looks like a good idea. What better way to see and raise Bush's gambit? How could he say no at this point?

As to the malarkey of requiring others to do what he didn't, that doesn't make it any less worth doing. Legitimate mockery of the Worst Two-Term President Ever should not prevent us following up when he stumbles upon a good idea, even if it's for the wrong reasons.

The Democrats can be the grown-ups here. I'm hoping they take this moment as far as it can go.

Bryan, Once again I wrok during the day and don't sit on my brains waiting for the gov't check.

How about cutting non-military spending by 5%. Ever walk thru a govt office and think of getting rid of every 20th person and the office wouldn't miss a beat.

How about entitlement reform. Let's get the gov't out of retirement planning business where they don't belong in the first place. The money (social security taxes) isn't being put a "lock box", it is being spent in the present day. Let's get rid of this generational ponzi scheme.

Bryan, raise the taxes on the rich. How high shall we go: 40%, 50%, 60%, ... how about 100%? That's it Bryan, tax the rich at 100%. That should cure it all.

Bryan, most importantly, let's start with all of the people that say "tax the rich". When you get your refund check this year - send it back. When you get a chance to make deductions on Schedule A, take the std exemption instead. Be a leader, unlike a formet democratic leader that claimed his used underwear were worth $5.00 a pair when donating them to charity.

Terry,

Disingenuous is the only word to describe your prior posting.

We are not giving up the SS. 'Ponzi scheme'. You must be talking about the stock market. You know, where insiders manipulate prices by buying and dumping certain stocks and leave us all holding the $h*@ bag??

Taxes on the rich?
Remove the SS FICA cap. Or, how about exempting everyones first 20% of income, and then removing the cap?? I like that idea! Fair to all.

Nobody ever sends anybody back a check. I saved my $600 bribe. Gonna need it if you have your way.

The American public OPPOSED every tax cut proposed by 'President' Bush and passed by the Republic congress. It was a historic opportunity to pay down the national debt, but our Psycho Man leader chose ideology over practicality and missed a huge historic moment. Why am I not surprised he couldn't figger it out?

Too bad.

Not only that, he cut taxes going into war. Let me repeat that; He cut taxes going into war.

GWB has nearly destroyed us.

Terry-

How about cutting military spending by 5%? Won't be a problem if we get out of Iraq.

Keep pushing the dump social security plan, though. That will be really popular. 100% certain to make the Republicans lose again.

C Mo,

Terry keeps trying to put lipstick on the GWB economic pig.

What's that song that Terry likes again.

Pink Floyd hit it!!!
MONEY,MONEY,MONEY get your hands off the rich folk's money,Terry needs a new boat,his wife needs a new Jaguar,it's all good with W. pulling the strings,Terry just bought some top notch stock in Halliburton,for sure,he's not hurtin.
Money for nothin,this Prez leaves Terry callin his life a breeze,screw the poor,screw the poor,give W. four more.

All together now..sing it Terry....

Terry,

Anything you can do, I can do better.

How's about we stop spending those billions of dollars on a star wars missle defense program that doesn't work?

Hows about we stop dumping a billion dollars a day in Iraq, a quagmire in which we pay for in both blood and money?

How's about we actually figure out a way to be energy independent so that we aren't extorted by OPEC anymore?

How's about we get the tax system back to where it was when we had record surpluses, before Bush and Congress squandered it?

You talk about a ponzi system, what about the electritian employed by Enron who lost his retirement because those crooks swindled him for all his worth? He'll be needing his social security check, I'm thinking. Or would you rather see him starve?

How's about we close all those corporate tax loopholes and end corporate welfare and restore true capitalism in this country, rather than this state-sponsered corporatism we operate now?

Hey, the ideas keep coming.

Out of 50 posts, the score;

Against Bush policy;
49

In favor Bush policy;
Terry ✔

Here is a NYT ed. about a Bush doppelganger Bob Nardelli;

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/04/opinion/04thur3.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I sure hope he doesn't have to pay tax on his parachute!

Terry,

"How about cutting non-military spending by 5%."

That would be a fine idea, it would be good if Mr. Bush followed Mr. Clinton's lead on this one. Discretionary spending has gone through the roof with your party in control, FAR outpacing the very modest growth under Clinton. This article is from 2004 but illustrates the first three years of DISCRETIONARY FUNDING GROWTH under Bush vs. Clinton's entire two terms. Factcheck.org is a non-partisan organization. http://www.factcheck.org/article139.html

"How about entitlement reform. Let's get the gov't out of retirement planning business where they don't belong in the first place."

Again, if Mr. Bush wanted to make this a priority he could have when he had all that "political capital." As mentioned, raising FICA would be an obvious start. There is no reason whatsoever why wages over $88,000 should be exempted. As for governments giving up on pensions altogher, maybe you can tell me how you are going to get the whole country to go along with this idea. People like Social Security because it means that if they work hard they will be able to retire peacefully, without being at the whim of the stock market at any given moment in time. Besides, the corporations who had offered pensions are attempting to shed them about as fast as they can. So, you know, screw the guys who get left behind, right?

"Bryan, raise the taxes on the rich. How high shall we go: 40%, 50%, 60%, ... how about 100%? That's it Bryan, tax the rich at 100%. That should cure it all."

You are out of your element, Donny. First off, during the most explosive period of economic growth in the 1950's and 60's, the top rate was NINETY PERCENT. Yet the country was still flourishing with enormous growth. So the high top marginal rate did not impact this growth. Furthermore, the current 35% rate is historically low and low in relation to the world. Should the rate be 40%? YES, this is what it was under Clinton, up from 30% under Bush 41, and the 1990's were certainly not the Great Depression.

There are so many articles I could link to, but I like this one by Bruce Bartlett, a well-konwn supply- sider. The article is written in 1993 while discussion were under way for the '93 Budget Bill. You'll note that the tax increases are SUPPOSED to stifle growth, but as you know (but probably will still deny somehow), growth was not deterred in any meaningful way in the 1990's. The supply-side predictions were wrong.

Of course if they were right, than Mr. Bush's stimulus ($2-3 trillion in tax cuts thus far and keeping the Iraq War off the books) should have had this economy absolutely ripping and roaring. Unfortunately, growth during Mr. Bush's tenure has been significantly slower than under Clinton's, and Clinton was able to balance the budget while Mr. Bush continues to rack up several generations worth of debt for the adults to deal with after he leaves office.

Terry,

This is from the liberal Washington Monthly. Before you simply dismiss it because, gasp, a liberal wrote it, try reading into the data that they examine. The article is from 1996, but in light of the experience of Clinton's presidency versus Bush's, its clear that the relationships hold up. Please please don't stop drinking the kool-aid! http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n4_v28/ai_18172956/pg_1

And John D, where are you? You usually love to blather on about the great economy shepparded in by our wise Republican sages.

Sorry, I didn't include the link that I meant to. Nonetheless, here are some more recent musings by supply-sider Bruce Bartlett. Just to make pefectly clear, Mr. Bartlett is no lefty.

Bruce Bartlett Calls Clinton a Successful Eisenhower Republican
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/001117.html

How Bush Bankrupted America
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/cpr28n1-050101.html

So much ignorance to respond to, so little time:

batting leadoff - CMorris: The SS Generational Ponzi scheme which returns about 2% ROI per year. I'll take my chances with the "insiders manipulated" stock market with 8% returns. By the way, "insiders" have to disclose their trades to the SEC and are limited on when they can trade their stock.
"Remove the SS FICA cap. Or, how about exempting everyones first 20% of income, and then removing the cap?? I like that idea! Fair to all." Then we could rename what Social Security the Welefare program for seniors. The reason their is a cap on the amount taxed is because there is a limit on the benefits rec'd.

The American public opposed the tax cuts, is that why Congress was re-elected in 2002 and 2004 and President Bush was also re-elected in 2004?

That $600 bucks probably doubled your savings.

As far as being 49 against and only one for, like the old saying goes - being right isn't always popular and being popular isn't always right.

The Home Depot CEO. In my opinion his severence was very excessive, but then again neither the Board nor the shareholders asked my opinion. Look at bright side - 40% will go to the gov't.

Batting in the two-hole: Tony - I'm not looking out for the GOP, but am supporting consdervative thought. The military by the way is the number one purpose of the federal gov't - to defend us from enemies - both foriegn and domestic. Contray to many in here the purpose of gov't is not to educate our children, pay our doctor bills, plan our retirement and give us cheap food.

John E. - no substance, no response.

Neil - Eliminate military spending by getting rid of "star wars". Last test I heard about, it was working. Get out of Iraq - what is your solution to the situation today , Jnaury 4, 2007?

Becoming energy independent - I agree - start drilling in ANWAR and futhur off the Gulf, Atlantic, and Pacific Coasts. That will increase tax revenue to the country, provide cheaper energy, and if we did it correctly, we wouldn't care what all those Islamic headchoppers do in their sandbox. Good thought Neil.

The electrican at Enron. He is in a tough situation. My question, was he complaining about lack of diversification in his 401K when the stock price was rising due to their fraudulate business practices? Once again, apply the 80/20 rule to the problem - that is 80%, probably over 95% of the population would be better off if SS was privatized (assuming it was privatized from the time they started contributing).

Finally Neil - the term Corporate Welfare, give me a concrete example and I'll respond to that.

Batting Clean-up and saving the best for last Bryan: Bryan that is a compliment because you at least think out a position. John E could learn a lot from you.

We will start with an agreement - discretionary spending has gone thru the roof under the GOP Congress and President Bush. The real reason they lost Congress. Let's hope President Bush uses his veto stamp more.

FICA cap is at $97K for 2007.

If I understood you correctly, you said the ideal tax rate is at 40%, about what it was under President Clinton. Is that correct? I want you to explain why you think 40% is correct?

I read you article by Mr. Peterson and this is a great example of a correlation, not cause and effect. He first talks about the the nosense of the flat tax since this article was written in 1996 and Steve Forbes was a presdential canidate. I'm not sure which state you live in, but if you live in Illinois, you file your state income taxes using a 3% flat tax rate. Mr. Peterson states that revenues hardly grew during the Reagan Administration, I would be very curious on where he gets his data.

From gov't census data I show 1980 revenues at$517 billion and in 1988 they were at $909 billion. Hardly flat growth. However spending was $591 billion and in 1988 was $1,065 billion. You see, revenue growth continued, but spending rose faster. The deficit was 2.7% of GDP in 1980 and 3.1% of GDP in 1988. While we are here, lets look at today's (2000) numbers: Revenues $2154 billion and Expenditures of $2472 billion but the deficit is only 2.6% of GDP - right where it was when President Carter left office.

As far as the corelation of high tax rates and good GDP growth. Look closely at his study. First, since it is 10 years old, he is missing this data. Second, the grwoth he talks about in 1920's wasn't due to tax rates, nut to the commercialization of the greatest invention of the 20th century - the car. During the 1950-63 period, the country was coming out WW2 and many GI's were getting their education and building this country. The GDP was easy to grow after coming out of a war where the entire economy revolved around the military. Also, at the end of that era, one of the original supply-side presidents reduced top tax rates - President Kennedy.

Next the professor talks about capital gains taxes. Capital gains, along with dividends, should not be taxed since they have been previouly taxed to the owner.

Once again, you ignore the true economic engine of the 1990's - the personal computer/internet. What the automobile did for the economy in the 1920's, the PC/internet did in the 1990's.

As far as your article by Bruce Bartlett, he hits the nail on the head. It's the spending that is driving the deficits, not the tax cuts. The gov't is doing too much. He states that President Bush is using gov't spending to push a conservative agenda and that is different from the Reagan conservativism, is that "gov't is not the solution, it is the problem."

Next the professor talks about capital gains taxes. Capital gains, along with dividends, should not be taxed since they have been previouly taxed to the owner.
Posted by: Terry | Jan 4, 2007 8:59:23 PM

What? Capital gains what? Please explain that...
That makes no sense what so ever.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Nope Terry, defense is the number four purpose of the federal government. Just ahead of "promote the general welfare". Huh, Fancy that.

Actually the founders were deathly afraid that the federal government would only be the means of supporting a standing army.

Terry,

"If I understood you correctly, you said the ideal tax rate is at 40%, about what it was under President Clinton. Is that correct? I want you to explain why you think 40% is correct?"

I said it already, but apparently you couldn't follow.

"Should the rate be 40%? YES, this is what it was under Clinton, up from 30% under Bush 41, and the 1990's were certainly not the Great Depression."

40% is granted an arbitrary number. There are a lot of issues that revolve around the top rates and an optimum place for it to be. For starters, 39.1% was the rate during the longest and broadest economic expansion. It clearly did not dampen the growth of the 1990's. It also, IMHO, is not "confiscatory."

Then, there is the issue of fairness. You and I distinctly disagree on this issue: you are opposed to any estate tax and seem to honestly believe that stimulating the economy at the top makes more sense than stimulating it at the bottom. On an economic level, we can agree to disagree.

On a fairness level, I fundamentally believe that those at the top owe a special burden to the government, as it is only through the strength of the government that those individuals are able to accumulate such vast wealth. Contrary to conservative orthodoxy, it is actually those at the middle and top who derive the most benefit from government entitlements and tax deductions.

Now, a few questions for you. What is your ideal top tax bracket and why?

How does cutting capitol gains rates increase productivity? Capitol gains cuts encourage market speculation, which is merely a short-term stimulus that inevitably unwinds.

From a previous discussion, how would eliminating the estate tax increase productivity? On what economic or moral grounds to you oppose the estate tax (and please, no garbage about "family farms." The Farm Bureau was asked to come up with a single example of a family losing their farm from the estate tax and came up blank.)

"The GDP was easy to grow after coming out of a war where the entire economy revolved around the military."

This sentence makes no sense. Please explain. Military buildup is "good for business" but when that stimulus is no longer necessary, it is "easy" to quickly alter an economy that "revolved around the military?"

Finally, if high taxes are bad, please explain why the periods of relatively high taxation correlate with periods of high economic growth, and why it is that these, in your eyes, anti-growth taxes do not have the effect that you seem to assume that they would. If a 90% top rate had the effect that you seem to believe, than the 1950's would have seen a deep depression. If 40% was too high in the 1990's, why did that era soar? And finally, if 30% is automatically preferable to, say, 40%, why hasn't the growth of Mr. Bush's terms come close to matching that which occurred in the previous 8 years before he took office?

Terry,
We have a marginal tax rate. That means if you are in the top bracket your entire income isn't taxed at the same rate.

Terry,
Social Security is not a retirement benefit. Tell us how you would be better under your privatization plan if you became completely disabled and unable to work and you are 30 something???

Bill R.,

In the article Bryan reference, Mr. Peterson, who wrote the article, talked about the taxation of capital gains. I responded with my statement "Capital gains, along with dividends, should not be taxed since they have been previouly taxed to the owner." I stand by that. If you receive a capital gain from the sale of a stock, you should not pay tax on it since it has been taxed at the corporate level already. Same with dividends.

Jethro,

I know we have a marginal tax rates (progressive tax rates) on the federal level. Here in Illinois, we have a flat tax.

I know that Social Security is a multiple benefit package, which is part of its problem. Even taking that into account, its still a lousy benefit. The problem with having the retirement package along with an insurance product (disability insurance) is that the funding of these types of products s/b different since the payouts are acturially different.

Bryan, just wanted to clarify your 40%. Your logic is since that was the tax rate when we had our longest period of growth, it must be correct. Let's look at your anaylsis, along with Mr. Peterson's, you basically have done a simple regression with two variables: GDP and highest marginal tax rates. Unfortunately, our economy has many, many variables and this simple statistical correlation is simplistic. Also, your analysis does not take into account and use of time-series analysis, which any good economic statistical analysis needs to do.

Also, one of major items that seem to be discounting, I've mentioned it before, is the economic innovation that was coming to fruition in 1990's (personal computer/internet) that would boost productivity and innovation; and thus economic growth. Therefore, higher tax rates would not slow down this economy.

Capital gains cuts increase investment by not penalizing the investor with double taxation.

I won't mention family farms, I know that was a bogus example, when speaking about estate taxes. This all goes to fairness about items being taxed once, not twice and should not be taxed at death.

After a war, the economy is shifting back to a peacetime economy and there were things to be built - towns for one. Many GI's just got thru college and were putting that knowledge to use making the economy grow.

Bryan, I answered you final paragraph with the situation that you didn't look at full picture of the economy. Also, President Bush's final economic history has not been written. As long as he doesn't cave to the dems and thier willingness to increase taxes, he will have a very good economic picture. He will have pulled the economy out of an economic slowdown/recession of 2000-01 and through a terrorist attck.

Some questions: Funny you ignored the fact about the growing gov't revenues of 1980's (and beyond). Also, the spending is what is driving the deficits. Finally, the deficit as a % of GDP shows that deficit is no bigger problem than it was in 1980.

Tony,

Do you think Jefferson, Madison, et al... meant providing a retirement plan, disablity plan, medical plan, when they penned the words "promote the general welfare". If they did, why has the federal gov't stopped there. Why not provide housing for all, food for all, clothing for all - wouldn't this help make a "more perfect union"?

Terry-

If the voters decide that housing for all, clothing for all or food for all is what they want the government to do, than absolutely.

Remember Jefferson, who believed in the tightest controls on government action, thought that the general welfare allowed the government to buy a huge area of land, doubling the size of the country. Land that was eventually given away to common folks for free under the Homestead Act and the Land Grants College Act.

Terry, do you deny that a large standing army was something the founders did NOT want?

A standing army - we don't have a large standing military anymore - is something this country must have to "provide for the common defense". This is a function that individual citizens cannot perform and must be performed at a national level. However, individuals are very capable of providing for thier own retirement planning, health care, etc...

This country has had a standing military for many, many years. Just in the past 70 years did was it decided that we had to provide retirement funding. The feds are doing a poor job of it at that.

So, Terry, you admit the whole arguement that the founders didn't intend for social services doesn't hold any water, since they didn't intend for a standing army either?

Tony - You get an "A" for effort.

However, go back to the stated goal in the preamble: "to provide for the common defense". In 1783, a standing army was not needed to provide for the common defense; however, in 2007, a standing military is needed. Therefore, in order to achieve the goal of a common defense, an standing military is necessary.

Now you're moving the goalposts Terry.

It would also be equally true to say that large scale social service programs were not required to "promote the general welfare" in 1783, but are a necessity in 2007.

For over 90% of the population, there is no need for large scale services if the gov't would get out of the way. Apply the "80/20" rule. We didn't have large scale social services until the 1930's and then the Great War on Poverty in the 1960's. By the way, has all that spending on the war on poverty made things any better?

Individuals can provide for their own welfare, they can't provide for their own "common defense".

"By the way, has all that spending on the war on poverty made things any better?"

Yep. Sure has. Seen many seniors begging for food lately? Do you understand how much worse off the poor were before these programs? Have you ever read about the Great depression That was the impetus for the creation of these programs? Were those people just insufficiently motivated to "provide for their own welfare"?

"For over 90% of the population, there is no need for large scale services if the gov't would get out of the way. "

And the other 10%, Terry? Tough Luck? Let them starve? So much for "compassionate" conservatism.

"Individuals can provide for their own welfare, they can't provide for their own "common defense".

Terry, you must have been lucky enough to have led a very privledged and very sheltered life if you don't realize that there are times when a great many people, all around you can't provide for their own welfare or that of their children at some point in time or another.

If all the spending has got everyone out of poverty, why are we still spending?

My bringing-up was not "very privledged" in the terms (financial) that you are thinking of. I was privledged that my parents taught be the value of an education, a good work ethic - not to sit around for handouts, and yes how to volunteer and give of oneself.

As far as a sheltered life, I work in downtown Chicago so I see the homeless on the street and realize time are not always good. My point still stands that volunteer organizations like the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities do a far better job than a gov't burecratic program.

Anyway, my point is that it is a small portion of the population that needs help and they should get it. The vast majority of people can provide for themselves if gov't would get out of the way and quit confiscating their money. Social Security is the prime example.

Terry-

Who said that the spending has gotten everyone out of poverty? I said that it's made things better, not that it's eliminated the problem entirely.

I could equally ask if all the money we've spent on the miltary has eliminated all security threats to the United States.

Terry, next time you see one of those homeless people on the street, consider that, despite the very best efforts of charities like the Salvation Army, and Catholic Charities, they do not have the resources to deal with the problem. Consider that if those social programs you disdain got even a fraction of the money we are wasting in Iraq, that we would be alot closer to a solution.

My final thought on this.

Liberalism its a good idea until the other persons money runs out.

My final thought on this:

Conservatism is a good idea until your trust fund runs out.