PDA

View Full Version : Do either of these canidates have a plan for the deficit?


WoodDraw
10-22-2004, 02:18 PM
Kerry's plan seems to be tax the rich which will somehow prodouce billions of dollars to pay for a whole slew of social programs while cutting the deficit in half. Right.

Bush's plan seems to be cut taxes, spend more, and then promise to cut the deficit. Again, right.

What this country needs right now is a fiscal conservative who isn't afraid to stop spending AND raise taxes. Unfortuantely, neither of these canidates come anywhere close to that.

Iowanian
10-22-2004, 02:34 PM
I don't know..........Kerry just plans to fix everything by taking away the Bush tax cuts. (another business related one signed today).

The way I understand it, the basics of the Bush plan for the deficit is to reduce taxes, stimulate the economy with that and low interest rates to encourage small business growth...............by stimulating the economy and creating jobs and good cheer, people will buy more, spend more, build more etc.............which will bring in more tax money..........................which will be used on the govt debt.

RINGLEADER
10-22-2004, 02:39 PM
I agree with you completely WoodDraw. Kerry has spent the funds from the tax hike he's proposing four different ways already and I doubt that cutting the deficit will win out over his health care program, social security, national defense (which he's brought up more as an attack against Bush than a legitimate plan to beef up the military) and cutting the decifit in half.

Same with Bush although he can at least draw a straight line between his belief that more money in people's pockets = more products sold = more people working = more people with money to spend = more tax revenues. Tax cuts DO spur revenue increases, but whenever the deficit reduction is supposedly coming five years down the road you can't really take that deficit reduction plan seriously.

I think the real problem with the deficit is that there really never was this huge surplus to begin with (yes, there was a surplus for a few years, but that was a symptom, not a result, of what was happening in the economy). The trillion dollar surpluses were arrived at by taking the inflated capital gains revenues from the dot-com boom and sending them out into the future as far as the eye can see. When those revenues - which should never have existed to begin with were it not for the stupidity of a lot of people with a lot of money willing to buy into companies that had no earthly reason to exist - dried up the shortfall was immediate and totaled more than $3 trillion. Add in the recession that came with the downturn and throw in the 9/11 attacks (and resulting expense of fighting the ensuing war) and you get a huge part of where the deficit originates.

WoodDraw
10-22-2004, 02:55 PM
I don't know..........Kerry just plans to fix everything by taking away the Bush tax cuts. (another business related one signed today).

But he refuses to admit that he'll be dealing with a Republican congress and that most of the money saved will go towards his new social programs.

The way I understand it, the basics of the Bush plan for the deficit is to reduce taxes, stimulate the economy with that and low interest rates to encourage small business growth...............by stimulating the economy and creating jobs and good cheer, people will buy more, spend more, build more etc.............which will bring in more tax money..........................which will be used on the govt debt.

But in order to do that he'll have to actually be fiscally conservative, something he has been the exact opposite of. He can promise to not increase spending but he'll need to actually cut the spending of some programs and stop congress from tacking on their usual shit.


Whatever. Both of these canidates are looking worse by the day. Maybe I'll just vote Libertarian and pray for a quick four years.

Iowanian
10-22-2004, 02:57 PM
I don't disagree with anything you've said on the thread.

Infidel Goat
10-22-2004, 03:40 PM
Though I'm sure many will disagree, a Kerry presidency would do far more to reduce the deficit because he would collect more tax revenue, but he wouldn't be able to spend much more money because the House and Senate would never approve his spending measures.

--Infidel Goat

Radar Chief
10-22-2004, 03:43 PM
HEY! Thereíll be no discussion of relevant political topics here. Donít you know where you are? ;)




Actually I agree, neither candidate is impressing me with his spending habits.

HC_Chief
10-22-2004, 03:46 PM
Do either of these canidates have a plan for the deficit?

Yes... they'll both increase it.

Amnorix
10-22-2004, 04:11 PM
Yes... they'll both increase it.

Agreed... :cuss::banghead::cuss::banghead::cuss::banghead:

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I'd vote Republican if he was a fiscal conservative, social liberal (or just social moderate). Unfortunately, that type of Republican will NEVER be nominated for President. Their nominating process would never allow it.

Cochise
10-22-2004, 04:20 PM
because he would collect more tax revenue

And here we see another person who thinks that we can tax ourselves into prosperity.

Do you also think that you can stand in a bucket and lift yourself up by the handle?

HC_Chief
10-22-2004, 04:30 PM
Agreed... :cuss::banghead::cuss::banghead::cuss::banghead:

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I'd vote Republican if he was a fiscal conservative, social liberal (or just social moderate). Unfortunately, that type of Republican will NEVER be nominated for President. Their nominating process would never allow it.

Giuliani, '08! :thumb:

Pitt Gorilla
10-22-2004, 04:31 PM
Agreed... :cuss::banghead::cuss::banghead::cuss::banghead:

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I'd vote Republican if he was a fiscal conservative, social liberal (or just social moderate). Unfortunately, that type of Republican will NEVER be nominated for President. Their nominating process would never allow it. :thumb: Exactly. Somehow, that makes me a "liberal," though.

picasso
10-22-2004, 04:32 PM
I think the real problem with the deficit is that there really never was this huge surplus to begin with (yes, there was a surplus for a few years, but that was a symptom, not a result, of what was happening in the economy). The trillion dollar surpluses were arrived at by taking the inflated capital gains revenues from the dot-com boom and sending them out into the future as far as the eye can see. When those revenues - which should never have existed to begin with were it not for the stupidity of a lot of people with a lot of money willing to buy into companies that had no earthly reason to exist - dried up the shortfall was immediate and totaled more than $3 trillion. Add in the recession that came with the downturn and throw in the 9/11 attacks (and resulting expense of fighting the ensuing war) and you get a huge part of where the deficit originates.

WHAT!!???
The surplus was a result of dot-com investments worth 3 trillion?
Please what a load of crap! If that was the case where are those investors now? Financing the iraqi war? The Y2k terror built more of a let down in the economy than investors in dot-coms ever did. The real turn in the economy was in a new policy and agenda. Money being payed out of the pockets of a corporate America to unvalued working people was an opportunity that was seized by the higher taxed republican corporate entity in cutting back the fat. Which indeed happened after Bush was elected and prior to 9/11. The bullshit war he invented at a tragic moment in our history, gave Bush the mask needed to devert american attentions away from his political agenda. Spend and tax relief.
Honestly this tax credit that we received was supposed to revitalize the economy? I couldn't even make my house payment with it. It didn't benefit me, or my neighbors, or anyone that I know in my salary range.
Did it benefit the so called 1%? YES!!!!
Will rolling that tax cut back for that 1% work? YES!!!
Pay as you go worked. And you have nothing to say to that. It's already proven that it did.

Amnorix
10-22-2004, 04:33 PM
Giuliani, '08! :thumb:

He's pro-choice. Fuhgettaboutit. And therein lies the problem.

Cochise
10-22-2004, 04:33 PM
Agreed... :cuss::banghead::cuss::banghead::cuss::banghead:

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I'd vote Republican if he was a fiscal conservative, social liberal (or just social moderate). Unfortunately, that type of Republican will NEVER be nominated for President. Their nominating process would never allow it.

I also agree that neither has a satisfactory plan to significantly reduce federal spending. But in the age of tit-for-tat voting, will we ever see anyone like that again?

Cochise
10-22-2004, 04:34 PM
WHAT!!???
The surplus was a result of dot-com investments worth 3 trillion?
Please what a load of crap! If that was the case where are those investors now? Financing the iraqi war? The Y2k terror built more of a let down in the economy than investors in dot-coms ever did. The real turn in the economy was in a new policy and agenda.

Was it not a projected surplus? The projections did not come to pass

:rolleyes:

WoodDraw
10-22-2004, 04:35 PM
Agreed... :cuss::banghead::cuss::banghead::cuss::banghead:

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I'd vote Republican if he was a fiscal conservative, social liberal (or just social moderate). Unfortunately, that type of Republican will NEVER be nominated for President. Their nominating process would never allow it.

Agreed.



Giuliani, '08!


How does Giuliani stand on fiscal issues? I've never really read about his views in a whole lot of detail.

Amnorix
10-22-2004, 04:35 PM
WHAT!!???
The surplus was a result of dot-com investments worth 3 trillion?
Please what a load of crap! If that was the case where are those investors now? Financing the iraqi war? The Y2k terror built more of a let down in the economy than investors in dot-coms ever did. The real turn in the economy was in a new policy and agenda. Money being payed out of the pockets of a corporate America to unvalued working people was an opportunity that was seized by the higher taxed republican corporate entity in cutting back the fat. Which indeed happened after Bush was elected and prior to 9/11. The bullshit war he invented at a tragic moment in our history, gave Bush the mask needed to devert american attentions away from his political agenda. Spend and tax relief.
Honestly this tax credit that we received was supposed to revitalize the economy? I couldn't even make my house payment with it. It didn't benefit me, or my neighbors, or anyone that I know in my salary range.
Did it benefit the so called 1%? YES!!!!
Will rolling that tax cut back for that 1% work? YES!!!
Pay as you go worked. And you have nothing to say to that. It's already proven that it did.

No, no, no. Remember, only voodoo econom, err, trickle down economics works to put more money into the hands of Americans, increase prosperity, increase tax revenues, increase the average happiness of all human beings, reduce the rate of ozone depletion while ALSO helping to feed the starving of Africa.

Well, almost all of the above at any rate.


:shake: :shake:

Amnorix
10-22-2004, 04:38 PM
Was it not a projected surplus? The projections did not come to pass

:rolleyes:

There was an ACTUAL surplus for a number of years.

The actual surplus was caused by a number of factors, including a booming economy, certainly. The Bush'41 tax hike that got him bounced out of office for breaking his "read my lips" pledge was also a tremendous help to that.

The projections for ongoing surplus fell off along with the economy during the recent dip, that is true. Bush's attempt to convince us that we can have Guns, Butter AND lowered taxes, however, is COMPLETELY FUGGING RIDICULOUS.

The lowered taxes to boost the economy would be fine IF they were short term boosts primarily designed for that purpose, instead of just marching along to neocons economic theories about fair taxation while having little or nothing to do with being DIRECTLY designed to boost the economy in teh short term. Totally fugging insane.

WoodDraw
10-22-2004, 04:43 PM
Tax cuts work IF you have a fiscal conservative in office. You don't fight two wars, launch all types of social programs, and then run around saying tax cuts for all!

Again, we need a canidate who will go in and clean up the crap going on now. Unfortuanetly, the current system is stacked against a canidate who actually knows anything.

Cochise
10-22-2004, 04:51 PM
There was an ACTUAL surplus for a number of years.

The actual surplus was caused by a number of factors, including a booming economy, certainly. The Bush'41 tax hike that got him bounced out of office for breaking his "read my lips" pledge was also a tremendous help to that.

The projections for ongoing surplus fell off along with the economy during the recent dip, that is true. Bush's attempt to convince us that we can have Guns, Butter AND lowered taxes, however, is COMPLETELY FUGGING RIDICULOUS.

The lowered taxes to boost the economy would be fine IF they were short term boosts primarily designed for that purpose, instead of just marching along to neocons economic theories about fair taxation while having little or nothing to do with being DIRECTLY designed to boost the economy in teh short term. Totally fugging insane.

Well, "neocons" demogogruery aside, I know you subcribe to the 'raise taxes until the economy booms' theory but there are other ideas on how to get things moving.

Should we lower spending? Absolutely. I think we should drastically lower domestic spending and drasically lower taxes.

Is there a politican out there who is going to do both? Nope. Why? Because, to be blunt, the average voter is a f**king idiot. They watch TV commercials that say candidate X cut spending on Y and think he's evil.

The average person thinks that the government can pull money out of its ass to 'boost education funding $X billion' or 'boost funding for social welfare program X'. They don't realize that someone has to pay the bill. They don't realize that increasing funding for something is not always good. They buy into the big-government notion that the solution to everything that's broken is to throw billions more at it.

So, I don't think anyone who really wants to reduce the size of government could get elected anymore. You can't campaign on budget cuts. You have to have freebies to offer the hand-to-mouth moronic voting base that exists in this country.

Mr. Kotter
10-22-2004, 04:52 PM
No.

Amnorix
10-22-2004, 05:01 PM
Well, "neocons" demogogruery aside, I know you subcribe to the 'raise taxes until the economy booms' theory but there are other ideas on how to get things moving.

In point of fact, I don't, for the obvious reason that taxes are generally a drag on economic growth. But you can't just drop taxes randomly either, while increasing spending and expect that the debt (and deficit) will do anything but grow.

Should we lower spending? Absolutely. I think we should drastically lower domestic spending and drasically lower taxes.

Lowering spending would be good, but apparently has become politically unacceptable or something. Neither party EVER talks about cutting ANYTHING, other than very vague references to "pork".

I'm okay with lowering taxes to achieve specific goals, like boosting the economy. Otherwise, I'd far prefer to get rid of the deficit (which ITSELF is ALSO a drag on the economy) before dramatically lowering taxes just for the sake of lowering taxes.

Is there a politican out there who is going to do both? Nope. Why? Because, to be blunt, the average voter is a f**king idiot. They watch TV commercials that say candidate X cut spending on Y and think he's evil.

Actually, although I do tend to think that most voteers are idiots also, I think it's more like everyone jealously and zealously guards THEIR federal and state programs, so anyone who gets specific about cutting X, Y and Z suddenly finds X, Y and Z interest groups going off their nut about what a terrible candidate he is, etc.

So, I don't think anyone who really wants to reduce the size of government could get elected anymore. You can't campaign on budget cuts. You have to have freebies to offer the hand-to-mouth moronic voting base that exists in this country.

I pretty much have to assume you're right. Anyone who has an ounce of common sense and has thought about it (or had it explained to them) will realize Social Security is doomed, but NOBODY is willing to discuss it.

Pitt Gorilla
10-22-2004, 05:03 PM
Was it not a projected surplus? The projections did not come to pass

:rolleyes:What are you talking about? Please elaborate (with evidence).

Cochise
10-22-2004, 05:09 PM
In point of fact, I don't, for the obvious reason that taxes are generally a drag on economic growth. But you can't just drop taxes randomly either, while increasing spending and expect that the debt (and deficit) will do anything but grow.

I would agree with that.


Lowering spending would be good, but apparently has become politically unacceptable or something. Neither party EVER talks about cutting ANYTHING, other than very vague references to "pork".

I don't think it can happen. We're stuck in this goodies-for-votes system where proposing cutting spending across the board would be sawing your own arm off with the voters.


so anyone who gets specific about cutting X, Y and Z suddenly finds X, Y and Z interest groups going off their nut about what a terrible candidate he is, etc.

Yes, to me, education is one of the prime things. Not that I am really saying I think that we need to drastically cut it, but the paradigm right now is that if you don't increase funding every year by an insane amount, you are trying to destroy schools and turn out kids who can't read (actually if they couldn't read these campaign commercials about cutting education they would probably be better off).

Right now, there's no way to say "we can do X better and cheaper if we rearrange it", because then you're an evil budget cutter.

Hell anymore, you get branded a "budget cutter" if you increase the funding for something less than you increased it the year before.


I pretty much have to assume you're right. Anyone who has an ounce of common sense and has thought about it (or had it explained to them) will realize Social Security is doomed, but NOBODY is willing to discuss it.

It's just the hot potato issue that no one wants to touch. I mean, what candidate is going to say, "this is effed up and never going to work, we need to phase it out". You can't even propose some kind of change to it without pissing off everyone in the country within 20 years of retirement.

If the voting base wised up to spending decreases maybe something would get done, but I don't predict that will ever happen and America will end up spending itself into bankruptcy like the USSR or something.

RINGLEADER
10-22-2004, 05:15 PM
Though I'm sure many will disagree, a Kerry presidency would do far more to reduce the deficit because he would collect more tax revenue, but he wouldn't be able to spend much more money because the House and Senate would never approve his spending measures.

--Infidel Goat


Kerry has no plan to reduce the deficit beyond saying that he will reduce the deficit mid-way through his second term. His campaign admits they will deficit spend to spur the economy. Also, he only gets the tax revenues he's projecting if he's simultaneously able to keep economic growth at the levels Bush got it to in the last year.

As far as the House and Senate are concerned, I have more faith in congress blocking the tax increases then I do in blocking new spending.

RINGLEADER
10-22-2004, 05:17 PM
WHAT!!???
The surplus was a result of dot-com investments worth 3 trillion?
Please what a load of crap! If that was the case where are those investors now? Financing the iraqi war? The Y2k terror built more of a let down in the economy than investors in dot-coms ever did. The real turn in the economy was in a new policy and agenda. Money being payed out of the pockets of a corporate America to unvalued working people was an opportunity that was seized by the higher taxed republican corporate entity in cutting back the fat. Which indeed happened after Bush was elected and prior to 9/11. The bullshit war he invented at a tragic moment in our history, gave Bush the mask needed to devert american attentions away from his political agenda. Spend and tax relief.
Honestly this tax credit that we received was supposed to revitalize the economy? I couldn't even make my house payment with it. It didn't benefit me, or my neighbors, or anyone that I know in my salary range.
Did it benefit the so called 1%? YES!!!!
Will rolling that tax cut back for that 1% work? YES!!!
Pay as you go worked. And you have nothing to say to that. It's already proven that it did.

You may not like it, but increased capital gains taxes accounted for $300 Billion in additional revenues and, in their infinite wisdom, the CBO decided that it would continue for 10 years. They were wrong.

RINGLEADER
10-22-2004, 05:19 PM
No, no, no. Remember, only voodoo econom, err, trickle down economics works to put more money into the hands of Americans, increase prosperity, increase tax revenues, increase the average happiness of all human beings, reduce the rate of ozone depletion while ALSO helping to feed the starving of Africa.

Well, almost all of the above at any rate.


:shake: :shake:

Actually every tax cut in the last 50 years has resulted in higher revenues even though the tax rates were lower.

Let people spend their money and they buy things which leads to more jobs which leads to more people buying things which leads to higher revenues.

Now explain how Kerry's economic plan to tax the "rich" and small business to pay for a big health care entitlement (or is it going to shore up social security, or is it going to pay for national defense, or is it going to pay down the debt?) accomplishes anything.

RINGLEADER
10-22-2004, 05:23 PM
There was an ACTUAL surplus for a number of years.

The actual surplus was caused by a number of factors, including a booming economy, certainly. The Bush'41 tax hike that got him bounced out of office for breaking his "read my lips" pledge was also a tremendous help to that.

The projections for ongoing surplus fell off along with the economy during the recent dip, that is true. Bush's attempt to convince us that we can have Guns, Butter AND lowered taxes, however, is COMPLETELY FUGGING RIDICULOUS.

The lowered taxes to boost the economy would be fine IF they were short term boosts primarily designed for that purpose, instead of just marching along to neocons economic theories about fair taxation while having little or nothing to do with being DIRECTLY designed to boost the economy in teh short term. Totally fugging insane.


Lower taxes have resulted in higher tax revenues. It's a fact.

And your guns, butter and lower taxes argument is a great example of the differences in this campaign because Kerry is pimping health care, butter and higher taxes with no difference in the impact to the deficit.

And Kerry's plan to raise capital gains taxes is a great example of how higher taxes do not always net you more tax revenue. If he is elected and if he raises capital gains taxes it's going to have a negative impact on the markets and capital gains revenues.

RINGLEADER
10-22-2004, 05:28 PM
And I make no bones that Bush has tried to deficit spend his way out of a recession (and succeeded). I'd rather he spend the money by giving it to people to use to buy things than have the government spend it on health care. This goes against my own interests since I pay for my own health care (as well as that of my parents), and my tax situation isn't going to change regardless of who is in office, but I find Kerry's "plan" so hallow I don't really know what he's trying to accomplish.

If Kerry was going to raise taxes on those making more than $200K, exclude any small businesses that may fall under that designation and then apply the money to the deficit I at least could understand the goal of what he's proposing. As it stands now he wants to raise taxes on the "rich" and small business and then use that money to help fund part of (but not all of) his health care entitlement. It's just madness.

WoodDraw
10-22-2004, 05:40 PM
Come on, the dollar is falling to record lows all over the world and yet neither canidate is even putting out a true plan to fight the deficit. Instead, they both want to either spend like hell or make tax cuts permanent. That annoys the hell out of me.

Calcountry
10-22-2004, 07:39 PM
I agree with you completely WoodDraw. Kerry has spent the funds from the tax hike he's proposing four different ways already and I doubt that cutting the deficit will win out over his health care program, social security, national defense (which he's brought up more as an attack against Bush than a legitimate plan to beef up the military) and cutting the decifit in half.

Same with Bush although he can at least draw a straight line between his belief that more money in people's pockets = more products sold = more people working = more people with money to spend = more tax revenues. Tax cuts DO spur revenue increases, but whenever the deficit reduction is supposedly coming five years down the road you can't really take that deficit reduction plan seriously.

I think the real problem with the deficit is that there really never was this huge surplus to begin with (yes, there was a surplus for a few years, but that was a symptom, not a result, of what was happening in the economy). The trillion dollar surpluses were arrived at by taking the inflated capital gains revenues from the dot-com boom and sending them out into the future as far as the eye can see. When those revenues - which should never have existed to begin with were it not for the stupidity of a lot of people with a lot of money willing to buy into companies that had no earthly reason to exist - dried up the shortfall was immediate and totaled more than $3 trillion. Add in the recession that came with the downturn and throw in the 9/11 attacks (and resulting expense of fighting the ensuing war) and you get a huge part of where the deficit originates.
What does, "as far as the eye can see" mean?

Boyceofsummer
10-22-2004, 10:52 PM
You mean YOUR deficit! You so called conservatives need to face up to what YOU have created. Create wedge issues. My way or the hiway. This monster is so large now that it will take a generation to deal with. Now begin YOUR blamefest.

wazu
10-23-2004, 09:40 AM
Realistically, Kerry is the best shot at getting the deficit reduced.

He'd probably be able to get taxes raised, but his spending programs would be pretty tough to get through congress. Net balance has got to be better than what Bush has in store.

Mr. Kotter
10-23-2004, 11:37 AM
Realistically, Kerry is the best shot at getting the deficit reduced.

He'd probably be able to get taxes raised, ....

Once he did that, he'd assure himself of having been a one term President. Guaranteed.

Phobia
10-23-2004, 01:26 PM
If I were a candidate for President, my plan to reduce the deficite would be to acquire Halliburton as a government entity. Seize all their funds and assetts.

Write me in, please.

wazu
10-23-2004, 03:19 PM
Once he did that, he'd assure himself of having been a one term President. Guaranteed.

Why? He's already running on an "I'll raise your taxes" platform. If he wins, people obviously aren't phased. (At least enough people to get him elected/re-elected.)

Phobia
10-23-2004, 03:44 PM
You mean YOUR deficit! You so called conservatives need to face up to what YOU have created. Create wedge issues. My way or the hiway. This monster is so large now that it will take a generation to deal with. Now begin YOUR blamefest.

WTF are you talking about? I didn't create the deficit any more than YOU did. Don't be ridiculous. It's just as much YOURS as it is mine. Stupid post, Boyce.