National Debt -- How much is too much?

[Iriemon]

Agreed. The problem requires more out of us than that.

It takes political will. Write your representatives. Tell them to stop borrowing from our future and balance the budget.

 

[RightinNYC]

http://truthlaidbear.com/porkbusters.php

PORK BUSTERS

If you want to be part of a movement to get pork cut out of this most recent transportation bugdet, check out this website, find your representatives, and contact them!!!

They already got Nancy Pelosi (!!) to give back 10 million, and several other Reps and Senators so far. This has been up for a couple weeks, and is getting more and more media coverage every day.

Check out www.instapundit.com as well for more updates about the project.

 

[Iriemon]

http://truthlaidbear.com/porkbusters.php

PORK BUSTERS

If you want to be part of a movement to get pork cut out of this most recent transportation bugdet, check out this website, find your representatives, and contact them!!!

They already got Nancy Pelosi (!!) to give back 10 million, and several other Reps and Senators so far. This has been up for a couple weeks, and is getting more and more media coverage every day.

Check out www.instapundit.com as well for more updates about the project.

This is a step in the right direction. However, this is just symbolism. The $10 million give back counts for want the government borrows in 10 minutes. If the highway bill is completely axed, it will only make a small dent in the deficits.

A much bigger view is needed. The goal should be balancing the budget, not cutting pork in a particular bill, not trying to figure out how to pay for New Orleans.

 

[oldreliable67]

"You know spending discipline has collapsed on Capitol Hill when one of the lone voices for fiscal restraint is House Minority Leader Nance Pelosi." WSJ, 9/27/2005

Wait! That can't be right! Aren't Dems the tax-and-spend party? From the same article:

"Congress could do more to control itself, but it's obvious the GOP leadership won't do this without prodding. That means Mr. Bush is going to have to lead. For five years the White House has let Congress spend at will, declining to veto a single bill, though many have arrived at his desk with billions of dollars more than he requested. This year's $286 billion highway bill was $30 billion over his alledged 2004 line in the sand."

Paraphrasing from Brendan Miniter, WSJ, 9/27/05:

This may come as a shock to some on the right. It shouldn't. Republicans have held the House for almost 12 years and have occupied the White House for all but eight of the past 25 years, yet they have failed to shut off the spending valves in Washington. It was only a matter of time before Democrats ran against wasteful Republican spending. It's also not surprising that Democrats would claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, for that claim has won them elections in the past. Indeed, it's how Sam Rayburn -- the legendary speaker who now has a House office building named after him -- won back the House for Democrats in 1954 and handed the party 40 years of uninterrupted control.

Even Peggy Noonan, the former Reagan speech writer and often a Bush cheerleader, said of Bush: "George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling port, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce?"

Noonan further wrote: "Here is, I think, the crux of the problem: Money is power. More money for the federal government and used by the federal government is more power for the federal government. Is this good? Is this what energy in the executive is -- "Here's a check"? Are the philosophical differences between the two major parties coming down, in terms of spending, to "Who's your daddy? He's not your daddy, I'm your daddy." Do we want this? Do our kids? Is it safe? Is it, in its own way, a national security issue?"

In other words, voters, Dems and Repubs alike, are being surprised to learn that 'compassionate conservatism' meant a return to the pork-laden legislation of the 1970s. Conservatives nor liberals understood that it meant never vetoing a spending bill. Conservatives nor liberals understood it to mean a historic level of spending. No one understood it to be a step back toward old ways that were bad ways.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

We can pay down the debt by believing in the free market system and by cutting expenses.

ROFL. There is no free market and you can't pay off a debt with faith. If you said that to a bank they'd laugh you right out the door.

 

[George_Washington]

ROFL. There is no free market and you can't pay off a debt with faith. If you said that to a bank they'd laugh you right out the door.

I didn't mean just sit on our asses and WAIT. I meant that we can still have tax cuts now and then and also still work to pay off the debt. We can do this if we restructure the budget and cut spending in certain areas.

And what do you mean there's no free market, of course there is. It's not a *pure* market but individuals are still free to invest in what they choose for the most part.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

I didn't mean just sit on our asses and WAIT. I meant that we can still have tax cuts now and then and also still work to pay off the debt. We can do this if we restructure the budget and cut spending in certain areas.

And what do you mean there's no free market, of course there is. It's not a *pure* market but individuals are still free to invest in what they choose for the most part.

Microsoft, the airliners, enron, the dotcom companies, the merging etc etc. That isn't a free market.We will never pay off the debt because we will always spend more importing products than what we make from exporting them and because the government won't put a cap on it's spending and keep it's paws off the money it's not supposed to be touching. The government always goes over budget.

 

[George_Washington]

Microsoft, the airliners, enron, the dotcom companies, the merging etc etc. That isn't a free market.We will never pay off the debt because we will always spend more importing products than what we make from exporting them and because the government won't put a cap on it's spending and keep it's paws off the money it's not supposed to be touching. The government always goes over budget.

Are you saying that large corporations stifle the free market by preventing small businesses from emerging? If so, I disagree.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Are you saying that large corporations stifle the free market by preventing small businesses from emerging? If so, I disagree.

I'm talking about the governments interference in the market. It definatley isn't a free market. The federal government stiffles small buisinesses..there are tons of taxes imposed on small buisiness owners not to mention the fact that the big companies can and do extinquish them.

 

[Missouri Mule]

The 1990s proved your statement is incorrect. Taxes were raised in 1993 from 31% top rate to 39%. That combined with a growing economy increased revenues. Spending increased too, but the leaders of that time kept spending increases moderate, increasing less than 3% a year, less than the revenue growth. The politicians did not spend the additional money. By 2000 the budget was balanced, we had a $100 billion surplus, and a two trillion dollar surplus was forcast for the next decade, with which we could have halved the Govt debt.

Instead of using that surplus, we got tax cuts for the wealthy and an Iraq war. And another $2.3 trillion more in debt.



Which is exactly why those now in power must be removed as soon as possible. Write your representatives. Vote against whoever is not willing to do what it takes to restore fiscal responsibility.

Our founding fathers did not believe this, which is why we have an elected form of government.

I disagree that such radical surgery is necessary. We just need to get the message to our politicians to stop borrowing from our kids.

Actually, they believed that it would be a mistake to give the vote to everyone. It was intended for the land owners; or the ones with a stake in the country; not the unwashed, uneducated (if not downright stupid) masses who would only line up for a hand-out as they are now.

Why would anyone give an equal vote to a deadbeat who on welfare compared to someone who works for a living and is a pillar of his community?

Our founders knew and understood that unfettered democracy would ultimately come unglued as the masses wanted more and more of the public largesse.

Bottom line: We are spending too much, taxed too much, and government is hugely inefficient. The best government is the least government possible. That would include the military and other essential government services, but about 80% of the rest ought to be scrapped. Let the people keep their own money. They will spend it more wisely than will any government.

 

[Iriemon]

...

In other words, voters, Dems and Repubs alike, are being surprised to learn that 'compassionate conservatism' meant a return to the pork-laden legislation of the 1970s. Conservatives nor liberals understood that it meant never vetoing a spending bill. Conservatives nor liberals understood it to mean a historic level of spending. No one understood it to be a step back toward old ways that were bad ways.

Everyone likes tax cuts. Everyone likes their favorite spending programs. Politicians give them both and to hell with the consequences. I call it pandering. It has worked great for the Republicans since 2000.

 

[Iriemon]

Actually, they believed that it would be a mistake to give the vote to everyone. It was intended for the land owners; or the ones with a stake in the country; not the unwashed, uneducated (if not downright stupid) masses who would only line up for a hand-out as they are now.

Why would anyone give an equal vote to a deadbeat who on welfare compared to someone who works for a living and is a pillar of his community?

Our founders knew and understood that unfettered democracy would ultimately come unglued as the masses wanted more and more of the public largesse.

I agree America has become more democratic over time. When our country was founded both blacks and women were denied the vote -- I didn't realize you every had to be a landowner to vote.

I personally disagree with the concept that the right to vote should be tied to a certain level of assets. The rich in this country have disproportionate power as it is.

Bottom line: We are spending too much, taxed too much, and government is hugely inefficient. The best government is the least government possible. That would include the military and other essential government services, but about 80% of the rest ought to be scrapped. Let the people keep their own money. They will spend it more wisely than will any government.

You can certainly debate whether the govt spends our tax money necessarily or wisely. But to me, the issue of whether the budget should be balanced with more taxes or less spending is secondary to the importance of not spending more that whatever revenues it brings in.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

You can certainly debate whether the govt spends our tax money necessarily or wisely. But to me, the issue of whether the budget should be balanced with more taxes or less spending is secondary to the importance of not spending more that whatever revenues it brings in.

Thats the problem with our system..we will always spend more importing items than what we make exporting items. The trade deficit will never go away thus we will always be in debt. In terms of the national level, raising taxes worked under the Clinton administration despite objections from the republican congress. It's also interesting to note that cutting funding to the intelligence programs was part of the package that the republican congress proposed to Clinton. It wasn't Clinton's idea.

 

[Missouri Mule]

The bottom line of this discussion is whether or not one believes that the money is OUR money or the GOVERNMENT'S money from our earnings? That is usually the definining characteristic between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe the government is the solution. Conservatives (real ones, anyway) believe that government is the enemy to be kept as small as possible and as much out of our lives as is possible. One of the most effective ways to do this is to strangle the government of its income. That's done by keeping taxes low and the government small; even if it leads to bigger debt. Sooner or later the government has to rein itself in because few people are willing to have their taxes raised to flush down some new goverment rathole. For example, who here wants to pour over $200 billion into New Orleans to restore it as it was before Katrina?

 

[galenrox]

Galen, the wealthy get more back in tax cuts because they pay more in taxes...theres even an additional tax for the wealthy. It's called the Luxury Tax. Everyone got money back from the tax cuts. I do agree that the "trickle-down effect" doesn't work. The insanely wealthy would rather buy $50,000 shower curtains than raise salaries and provide well paying jobs.

Well the progressive tax system seems to make a lot of sense, and this luxury tax you speak of, from what I can tell, if just a higher tax rate for those of higher income.

And also, the VAST majority of people in the richest 1% aren't even in positions to really do much for the actual trickle down effect. We pretend that everyone making $1,028,000 a year is an employer who's gonna hire more people with the money from the tax cuts.
I don't know if my dad falls into that category of the richest 1%, but I'm pretty sure he's damn close. Never had an employee in his life. He works for a company. Most of his friends there make similar amount of money, none of them have employees.
It's just putting cash in their pockets. I like what my dad does, which is he donates it to charity, because he feels the government giving him more money just for being rich is immoral, but most people aren't my dad.

I am just baffled at what kind of idiot actually thinks that in today's economy trickle down could actually work.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Well the progressive tax system seems to make a lot of sense, and this luxury tax you speak of, from what I can tell, if just a higher tax rate for those of higher income.

The Luxury Tax is an additional tax. It's imposed on those who spend more than x amount of dollars on products considered non essential. I don't remember what that amount is but I'll have to look it up. I know that it includes things like cars, jewelry, clothing, etc.

 

[Iriemon]

Thats the problem with our system..we will always spend more importing items than what we make exporting items. The trade deficit will never go away thus we will always be in debt. In terms of the national level, raising taxes worked under the Clinton administration despite objections from the republican congress. It's also interesting to note that cutting funding to the intelligence programs was part of the package that the republican congress proposed to Clinton. It wasn't Clinton's idea.

I may be wrong ... but I don't think the trade deficits are directly related to the US Govt' operating deficits.

Trade deficits = US consumers buy more imported goods than they sell. Having a trade deficit does not result in debt. It results in foreign sellers having more dollars, and US consumers having more foreign goods.

US Govt deficits = Govt spends more money than it takes in through taxes. Result = more debt.

How are these two concepts related, except for they both have the word deficit?

I didn't know it was the Republican leadership in Congress that cut intellegence spending -- Clinton usually gets whacked for this by the conservatives. I do know that Bush I was the president who first dramatically cut defense spending.

 

[Iriemon]

The bottom line of this discussion is whether or not one believes that the money is OUR money or the GOVERNMENT'S money from our earnings? That is usually the definining characteristic between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe the government is the solution. Conservatives (real ones, anyway) believe that government is the enemy to be kept as small as possible and as much out of our lives as is possible. One of the most effective ways to do this is to strangle the government of its income. That's done by keeping taxes low and the government small; even if it leads to bigger debt. Sooner or later the government has to rein itself in because few people are willing to have their taxes raised to flush down some new goverment rathole. For example, who here wants to pour over $200 billion into New Orleans to restore it as it was before Katrina?

If it is our money the Govt spends, whose money is it the Govt borrows?

Based on your definition of Conservatives and Liberals -- we sure haven't had Conservatives in power over the last 5 years. But they call themselves conservative, which is why I call myself a liberal.

The strangulation theory didn't work particularly well in 1980-1992 nor in 00-05. In both those time periods, tax revenues were "strangled", but all that happened was the Govt borrowed huge somes of money to make up the difference.

Which is why the interest expense was about $350 billion this year. We could have built two New Orleans but for the interest expense on the Republican debt.

 

[Iriemon]

Well the progressive tax system seems to make a lot of sense, and this luxury tax you speak of, from what I can tell, if just a higher tax rate for those of higher income.

And also, the VAST majority of people in the richest 1% aren't even in positions to really do much for the actual trickle down effect. We pretend that everyone making $1,028,000 a year is an employer who's gonna hire more people with the money from the tax cuts.
I don't know if my dad falls into that category of the richest 1%, but I'm pretty sure he's damn close. Never had an employee in his life. He works for a company. Most of his friends there make similar amount of money, none of them have employees.
It's just putting cash in their pockets. I like what my dad does, which is he donates it to charity, because he feels the government giving him more money just for being rich is immoral, but most people aren't my dad.

I am just baffled at what kind of idiot actually thinks that in today's economy trickle down could actually work.

Tell your dad if he ever comes down round Miami I'll buy him a drink.

 

[Iriemon]

The Luxury Tax is an additional tax. It's imposed on those who spend more than x amount of dollars on products considered non essential. I don't remember what that amount is but I'll have to look it up. I know that it includes things like cars, jewelry, clothing, etc.

My understanding is that the "luxury tax" was part of the tax package put together in Bush I's tenure, but was repealed or phased out as part of the 93 tax law.

I don't believe there is currently any luxury tax, at least at the federal government.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

I may be wrong ... but I don't think the trade deficits are directly related to the US Govt' operating deficits.

Trade deficits = US consumers buy more imported goods than they sell. Having a trade deficit does not result in debt. It results in foreign sellers having more dollars, and US consumers having more foreign goods.

US Govt deficits = Govt spends more money than it takes in through taxes. Result = more debt.

How are these two concepts related, except for they both have the word deficit?

In effect a trade deficit does result in national debt because the government is only losing money rather than making it to pay of the national debt. I suppose it merely provides an partial excuse for the continuation of the national debt.

I didn't know it was the Republican leadership in Congress that cut intellegence spending -- Clinton usually gets whacked for this by the conservatives. I do know that Bush I was the president who first dramatically cut defense spending.

Yes and it's something you'll never hear the republicans admit to. The cut in intelligence spending was not in Clinton's proposal. The republican congress drafted a new proposal including Clinton's tax hike and their proposal to cut intelligence spending. It was signed by Clinton but the republicans proposed it and passed it.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

My understanding is that the "luxury tax" was part of the tax package put together in Bush I's tenure, but was repealed or phased out as part of the 93 tax law.

I don't believe there is currently any luxury tax, at least at the federal government.

The Luxury Tax is still in effect at the federal level but the percentage rate was reduced to 3%.

 

[Iriemon]

In effect a trade deficit does result in national debt because the government is only losing money rather than making it to pay of the national debt. I suppose it merely provides an partial excuse for the continuation of the national debt.

How exactly does a trade deficit result in US Govt debt? How is the US Govt losing money by a trade deficit?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

How exactly does a trade deficit result in US Govt debt? How is the US Govt losing money by a trade deficit?

Oi..the concept is rather simple. If the U.S. made money instead of losing it they could use the money they make to pay back the national debt.

 

[Iriemon]

The Luxury Tax is still in effect at the federal level but the percentage rate was reduced to 3%.

What is taxed?