@DCGoldPants Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102401426_pf.html President Says Democrats Are 'Disposed' to Increase TaxesBy Michael Abramowitz Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 25, 2006; A07 SARASOTA, Fla., Oct. 24 -- President Bush accused Democrats on Tuesday of being "genetically disposed" to raise taxes, as he sharpened his rhetoric on the economy in an effort to rally Republicans to the polls next month. Appearing here on behalf of GOP congressional hopeful Vern Buchanan, Bush mocked Democrats for what he described as their misplaced pessimism that tax cuts would not stimulate the economy. He said it was only one of many poor predictions by the Democrats and suggested they are making another mistake in their growing confidence that they might take the House next month. "I think they may be measuring the drapes," Bush said to titters within the crowd of GOP partisans. "If their electoral predictions are as reliable as their economic predictions, November 7th is going to be a good day for the Republicans." "George Bush sure has a lot to say for a guy who added $3 trillion to the nation's debt," responded Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. While the president was in Florida, Vice President Cheney tried to rally the party faithful Tuesday on Sean Hannity's radio talk show. He warned of "some jeopardy, depending on how the election comes out, as to whether or not we'll be able to continue" the administration's national security policies. Cheney also offered some political commentary, describing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as a potentially "formidable" candidate in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes. "I think she could win," Cheney said. "I disagree with her on nearly all the issues, but nobody should underestimate her. She's a very serious candidate for president." And he described Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as an "attractive guy" who will be "a player on the Democratic side" if he decides to run for president. But with only two years as a senator, he said, "I think people might want a little more experience than that, given the nature of the times we live in." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Well, let's see we are a Gazillion dollars in debt, so we either cut spending or we increase revenue. Hmmm, well we all know D.C. ain't ever gonna CUT spending sooooo........... Typical Bush tactics, scare the heck out of the Right so the turn out on election day. BTW, darn right they're measuring the drapes...he handed them the Keys! Oh, and it wasn't the tax cuts that increased the economy, it was the increased spending. War is always good for the economy, heck deficit spending in WWII is what broke the Great Depression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Well, let's see we are a Gazillion dollars in debt, so we either cut spending or we increase revenue. Hmmm, well we all know D.C. ain't ever gonna CUT spending sooooo........... Typical Bush tactics, scare the heck out of the Right so the turn out on election day.BTW, darn right they're measuring the drapes...he handed them the Keys! Oh, and it wasn't the tax cuts that increased the economy, it was the increased spending. War is always good for the economy, heck deficit spending in WWII is what broke the Great Depression. Do me a favor and research what our debt load is in comparison to GDP. Because the way sane people look at our debt is we have a gazillion dollars in debt but we have quadruple drazillion dollars in GDP. You analogy is like saying that $30,000 a month is a lot of money for a mortgage payment. And it is to almost all income earners. But to a person earning $250,000 a month in wages that $30,000 a month is chump change. Do yourself a favor and the next time you talk about debt, please put the number in perspective with our economy. K? K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Assuming you won't choose to inform yourself.... http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2005/10/why_debt_doomsd.html The debt-doomsday myth goes like this: The national debt will be a crushing burden on our children and grandchildren. Whatever we borrow today will require an eventual tax increase somewhere down the road. If we continue allowing the debt to increase, future generations will face tax rates of 80%, 90%, or 100% (the dreaded “baby tax”), or hyperinflation, or the trauma of debt repudiation. Financial doomsday will be inevitable, unless we elect fill-in-the-blank to save us from that disaster. It’s a myth advanced by people on all sides of the political landscape. It invokes unfounded fear in voters everywhere. Democrats use it as a potent political weapon; tax rate hikes to "fix it" are at the top of their fiscal agenda. Republicans also use it as a potent political weapon; spending cuts to "fix it" are high on their agenda. Entire presidential campaigns by independent candidates have been predicated on widespread, unfounded fear of the debt. click link to continue...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted October 25, 2006 Author Share Posted October 25, 2006 Who cuts taxes during a war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 The GDP is not a good indicator of the real economic activity of our nation, so any comparison with the GDP and the National Debt is going to be skewed. The GDP favors policies that are geared to favor the rich, hence the problem of vast poverty in the "richest" nation in the world. Ironic, huh? But, then, you'll disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Another, and check out the debt clock on the right corner.... http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2005/10/our_teenytiny_n.html Our Teeny-Tiny National Debt MicroscopeToday I read this in an article at Townhall.com: If you stacked $8 trillion worth of dollar bills, one on top of the other, how tall would the pile reach? . . . [Answer:] You could stack dollar bills all the way to the moon, and then all the way back, and still not have used eight trillion of them. I’ve been saying over, and over, and over at this website that focusing on raw dollars of debt is a nearly meaningless exercise, if objective financial or economic analysis is the goal. ....... click to continue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 The GDP is not a good indicator of the real economic activity of our nation, so any comparison with the GDP and the National Debt is going to be skewed. The GDP favors policies that are geared to favor the rich, hence the problem of vast poverty in the "richest" nation in the world. Ironic, huh? But, then, you'll disagree. We are the richest country the world, you got a problem with that? Would you rather someone else have this mighty designation?? You think taxes designed to cripple our Gross Domestic Production is the way to go? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Asbury try reading the links before responding. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Who cuts taxes during a war? Nobody, and that's the point, isn't it? WWII saw an increase in taxation, it was called War Bonds. Its crazy to think that cutting taxes during an armed conflict is a good thing. But, then when you've lost all the other arguments on the political landscape I guess you bring up the old arguments hoping that nobody is actually paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Our national debt burden... a history. http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2005/01/national_debt_b.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 :doh: Asbury try reading the links before responding. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Nobody, and that's the point, isn't it? WWII saw an increase in taxation, it was called War Bonds. Its crazy to think that cutting taxes during an armed conflict is a good thing. But, then when you've lost all the other arguments on the political landscape I guess you bring up the old arguments hoping that nobody is actually paying attention. Or there is no need for argument because our economy is doing great especially considering the war and the mass media telling everyone that the economy is going to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 :doh: :doh: Right back at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 We are the richest country the world, you got a problem with that? Would you rather someone else have this mighty designation??You think taxes designed to cripple our Gross Domestic Production is the way to go? lol LOL, please read posts before responding, thanks. My problem is not that we are the "richest" nation in the world, my problem is that there is vast poverty IN the "richest" nation in the world. 2000 years ago 90% of the world's wealth was controlled by 10% of the people 2000 years later 90% of the world's wealth is controlled by 10% of the people Oh the joy of progress. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 From the same link as before..... How to win "National Debt Whack-A-Mole" Just in case anyone would like a refresher on how to whack 100% of the moles, here are the snappy comebacks. (Sufficiently thorough responses would be lengthier, but here I opted for brevity. The links provide more info.) 1. “It's a crushing burden on our children and grandchildren!” No it isn’t. Not if the size of our economy keeps growing at least as fast as the debt. Besides, our grandchildren will inherit the T-bonds; that’s not a burden, that’s an asset. More here and here. 2. “It's $29,000 for every man, woman, and child!” So what? They’ll never have to pay it back if the economy keeps growing; they’ll just keep rolling it over, just like we’re doing today. Besides, today’s GDP is $44,000 for every man, woman, and child. That’s very important, yet you never mention it; why is that? More here. 3. “It would stretch to the moon and back four times!” Balderdash. The national debt is so tiny we could spot-glue it into one little dimple of one little golf ball and watch Tiger Woods swat it a mile. More here. 4. “We're indebted to a bunch of foreigners!” Not really all that much. And besides, why is that so scary? It didn’t scare Milton Friedman, it shouldn’t scare you. And if foreign-held debt is still too scary for you, then why not domesticate it by letting those foreigners immigrate more easily? More here and here and here. 5. “Interest on the debt buys us absolutely nothing!” Hold on there; didn’t the principal buy us something? And let’s not forget that uninterrupted interest payments buy us our creditworthiness. That’s what keeps investors interested in lending us their principal, at low interest rates. More here and here. 6. “Deficits cause higher interest rates!” Then how come interest rates and deficits have a track record of going in opposite directions? More here and here. 7. “The present value of unfunded liabilities is $78 trillion!” That’s just single-entry accounting in disguise. What sense does it make to do NPV analysis on just one side of the balance sheet? Why not also calculate the NPV of the yet-unrealized future assets we’ll create by growing our economy, our incomes, and our ability to finance our obligations? If someone would do that, and be open and honest about the growth assumptions they used, we could calculate a meaningful debt-to-assets ratio—instead of arousing hysteria about a single, scary-looking liability number. More here. 8. “The trade deficit makes us the biggest debtor nation!” What’s wrong with foreigners investing in the USA? They seem to like our labor markets, our real estate, our economic strength, our internal stability, our dollar, and our T-bonds. Wouldn’t it be a bigger problem if they lost confidence in those things? More here, and more in this book. 9. “We'll never be able to pay it back!” That’s highly debatable, but more importantly: it's irrelevant. We won’t have to pay it back if we can sustain a healthy, growing economy. Then we can just keep rolling the debt over, and over, and over, and over. Forever and ever and ever. Harmlessly. More here. 10. “Baby Boomer retirements will crush social security!” If anything crushes social security, it will be xenophobic immigration laws and policies that exacerbate the coming boomer-driven reduction in our workforce. We should be welcoming economically productive and promising immigrants into the USA at several times today’s rate. Reason: Sustained economic growth requires two things: (1) growing productivity-per-worker, and (2) a reasonably level or growing number of workers. The first is highly likely, and might carry the day in spite of other problems (more here and here); however, the second is where we just might shoot our foot off by letting the “close-the-borders” knuckleheads get their way. More here. 11. “Deficits go out as far as the eye can see!” Whoever says that can’t see very far at all. The deficit is shrinking, not growing. More here. 12. “Interest on the debt is a transfer of wealth to the rich!” No, that's wrong; it’s the other way around. The rich pay a higher percentage of the taxes than the percentage of the debt they own. That means the interest payments (made from those tax receipts) create a net drain on the rich, and a net gain to the non-rich. More in this book. 13. “The USA is already bankrupt!” If that’s true, then how come the creditors only want 5% interest? More here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 LOL, please read posts before responding, thanks. My problem is not that we are the "richest" nation in the world, my problem is that there is vast poverty IN the "richest" nation in the world. 2000 years ago 90% of the world's wealth was controlled by 10% of the people 2000 years later 90% of the world's wealth is controlled by 10% of the people Oh the joy of progress. :doh: Define "vast poverty". I want real numbers. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Do me a favor and research what our debt load is in comparison to GDP.Because the way sane people look at our debt is we have a gazillion dollars in debt but we have quadruple drazillion dollars in GDP. You analogy is like saying that $30,000 a month is a lot of money for a mortgage payment. And it is to almost all income earners. But to a person earning $250,000 a month in wages that $30,000 a month is chump change. Do yourself a favor and the next time you talk about debt, please put the number in perspective with our economy. K? K And the fact that you overlook Portis is that the bush administration's GROWTH in spending was EXCEEDING our growth economically!!! in other words, up until THIS quarter, we were INCREASING the % of debt to GDP ratio. Look it up. . . K K Stop trying to defend asinine spending increases you don't agree with, because you are only making your hole deeper and deeper down the road when the republicans are the looked at as the ones for expanded government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 And the fact that you overlook Portis is that the bush administration's GROWTH in spending was EXCEEDING our growth economically!!! in other words, up until THIS quarter, we were INCREASING the % of debt to GDP ratio.Look it up. . . K K Stop trying to defend asinine spending increases you don't agree with, because you are only making your hole deeper and deeper down the road when the republicans are the looked at as the ones for expanded government. I am focused on the debt argument, not politics. K? K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Define "vast poverty". I want real numbers. lol Walk out your front door, look at the numbers of homeless, look at the numbers of those on welfare. Heck, get out of the suburbs and take a real look around. Any homeless in the "richest" nation is a shame, so you want numbers just find 1 homeless person, just 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Define "vast poverty". I want real numbers. lol You have opened a can of worms on yourself with this because either way it goes ruins your argument. For instance: 1. If the numbers are small then the question is raised: "Why can't the "richest" nation in the world take care of so few in need? 2. If the numbers are large then the question is raised: "Why are there so many poor in the "richest" nation in the world? Either way, you lose. Thanks for playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 Walk out your front door, look at the numbers of homeless, look at the numbers of those on welfare. Heck, get out of the suburbs and take a real look around. Any homeless in the "richest" nation is a shame, so you want numbers just find 1 homeless person, just 1. So instead of facts you bring rhetoric. Do you want me to do the homework for you? I will even show you how we compare to EVERY OTHER NATION IN THE WORLD. If you would like of course.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 You have opened a can of worms on yourself with this because either way it goes ruins your argument. For instance:1. If the numbers are small then the question is raised: "Why can't the "richest" nation in the world take care of so few in need? 2. If the numbers are large then the question is raised: "Why are there so many poor in the "richest" nation in the world? Either way, you lose. Thanks for playing. 1) We are a free country and we can't MAKE anyone do anything. We make money in a capitalistic society by WORKING. There are available jobs everyday and everywhere in this country. They may not be the CEO of GM type of jobs. But every able person in this country can and should be working. It is not the job of our country to coddle sloth. 2) The numbers are not large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkateer Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 "Its crazy to think that cutting taxes during an armed conflict is a good thing." It would be crazy if we didnt have record tax revenue, which we currently do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.