Well, I do have an opinion Parso, but I've argued it out before with martin and don't really want to get into another debate. But I think the unprecedented national debt will lead to a lower standard of living, lowered productivity, and lower real incomes. If I spend more money than I earn, I will go deep in debt and eventually bankrupt the family because I was irresponsible. America is spending vastly more money than she is bringing in. Isn't America being financially irresponsible, too? According to Alan Greenspan (who knows more about the economy that I do): Greenspan on the Deficit Feb. 25, 2004 Alan Greenspan "... under a range of reasonably plausible assumptions about spending and taxes, we could be in a situation in the decades ahead in which rapid increases in the unified budget deficit set in motion a dynamic in which large deficits result in ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years. The resulting rise in the federal debt could drain funds away from private capital formation and thus over time slow the growth of living standards." ... The Paydown of Federal Debt Apr. 27, 2001 Alan Greenspan "I have long argued that paying down the national debt is beneficial for the economy: it keeps interest rates lower than they otherwise would be and frees savings to finance increases in the capital stock, thereby boosting productivity and real incomes." The debt is now close to 8 Trillion dollars. We are adding to it $1.64 billion every day. How long can this bullchit go on? Try this site to see what the debt is today and links to pertinent articles: US National Debt Clock .
1. but what if you can charge your debt to your great grandchildren, who laugh at your relatively tiny debts. 2. the government isnt your family. it is more like your church. you are a member of it, but if it goes into debt, you will not necessarily have to pay for it. you might get less bread at the next communion, but you didnt need that anyway. the local bakery has better bread. if your church gets so poor it can barely keep the lights on, you dont care, as long as they do not force you to pay the bills (raise taxes). in fact the responsible thing to do is to teach the damn church to be disciplined by only giving it enough money to provide the services you actually need (vote for politicians who lower taxes). 3. if the government gets so poor they can only provide incredibly minimal services, that is good because people just just privately buy services anyways. dont know, dont care. maybe whoever is loaning us this money will stop loaning it to us. so what. anyways i have read that 40% of the money, the government owes itself, so i see no reason to care about that. i think we can reasonably assume that the future will bring incredible riches and quality of life, regardless of debt. the only thing that can hurt is is restricting capitalism by raising taxes. i hear alot of talk about how debt hurts us, but see no evidence that it does. what as long as private capitalists are able to exchange good and services with minmal taxes, there will be prosperity. we do not need government services (except security). has bush raised anything? also read this: http://slate.msn.com/id/89303/
A few directly and many more indirectly. The Bush Tax Increase February 20, 2004 President Bush said on 2/12/04 that "we cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket." However, for the majority of Americans, the tax cuts meant very little. By next year, for instance, 88% of all Americans will receive $100 or less from the Administration's latest tax cuts. But even above and beyond this, the tax cuts and the deficits they have created have forced the Administration to raise fees and cut services for most Americans – which is an effective tax increase on average Americans. In many ways, the Administration's fiscal/budget policies are actually taking more money out of people's pockets. DIRECT TAX INCREASES PROPOSED IN THE BUSH BUDGET: President Bush's 2004 budget proposed an increase of $5.9 billion in fees on taxpayers from just one year ago. In 2005, the Bush budget assumes the "government will take in 13% more in taxes and fees next year than in fiscal 2004." [Source: WP, 2/19/03, Boston Globe, 2/3/04] STATE TAX INCREASES, BROUGHT ON BY BUSH BUDGET: The latest Bush tax bill/budget proposes a 3% decrease to federal grants to states, a $16 billion decrease in state tax revenues - all while proposing between $23-$82 billion in unfunded mandates. Because of this "millions of American individuals and businesses face tax hikes this year... wiping out the savings that some taxpayers would otherwise see on their federal 1040." Since President Bush took office, states have raised taxes by a total of $14.5 billion, after 7 consecutive years of cutting taxes. The total 2003 net tax increase was $6.9 billion for the 42 reporting states – following a 2002 net tax increase of $9.1 billion. Seventeen states raised taxes by more than 1% with four states raising taxes by at least 5%. USA Today reports "squeezed by tight budgets, Republicans in at least a dozen state legislatures across the country are feuding over the party's bedrock principles of holding down spending and not raising taxes." Similarly, the Wall Street Journal noted, Republicans in states all over the country "are undercutting the election-year message: They are for raising taxes...Worried about declines in schools and basic services, many Republican leaders in the states say they have little choice." Read the rest of the story
the government can make more revenue by lowering taxes, because the economy improves. if the governmetn takes in "13% more" that doesnt mean they raised taxes. show me that the actual tax rate was raised. lower tax rate, more jobs, more people buying stuff, more tax revenue. what matters is the rate the government taxes us at, not the revenue the government makes. if they take it at a high rate, we never get to exchange with with each other a bunch of times. the government can actually make more revenue by lowering the tax rate and allowing the whole economy to grow. so your information on government revenue is not relevant. bush lowered taxes, and that is good. very very good. regardless of the debt. 1. bush doesnt raise state taxes, dont be stupid. 2. local taxes are probably better for the economy anyway, because their is more accountability about how the money is spent. but thats beside the point, bush has nothing to do with local taxes. if local governments overtax their residents, their is nothing he could do.
This idea was referred to as "reaganomics". It didn't work & simply isn't true at the relatively low taxation rates Americans face.
i love reaganomics and "voodoo economics" and "trickle down" and "supply side" economics, and am not convinced they dont work. and you are supposed to agree with me that we are supposed to get as close to unfettered capitalism as possbile! and are taxes are not low relative to what they were 100 years ago. they are high and terrible. "tax freedom day" is way too far into the year. we work far too much for the government.
Not convinced? Did reagan's economic policy increase govt revenue? No. Thus, it didn't work... I don't see how you could argue otherwise. At much higher taxation rates it could & probably would work, but at America's relatively low levels - it simply doesn't provide enough incentive. Trickle down economics do work - just not as well as hoped for & proposed by big business.
