Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Shek, that video pretty much gels what I thought (whew!) even though I couldn't put it into words.
When do we get part II?
-dale
I think you need to send money to Cato, as there's no part II yet. Hopefully, it won't be chalk full of simple charts that only show bivariate correlations.
__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Here's part II. While I understand that the series is meant to not be technical, the evidence presented is too simple for my tastes. The following blog entry provides some what ifs that call into question the matter of fact type presention. Again, I think the concept in very general terms is on target, but the tax system as designed is so complex that it's difficult to isolate the true impacts of tax cuts (not impossible, but difficult).
It is quite simple, if tax money coming in goes down, you decrease expense. If you require extra money (like to pay for an extended military deployment halfway across the world), you increase taxes to pay for it. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans though have the balls to do that cause they each got castrated long ago.
My generation of youngish people do not understand how screwed the seniors and older people are making us if things continue like they are doing. Take this "tax rebate" they are giving back to us this year. It's not a rebate, it's just adding $150 billion to the national debt. Who pays that, not the seniors, when the s*** hits the fan, they'll be dead. It will be me and anyone near my age. Not only will we have to pay the $150 billion back, we will have to pay the interest. Over 20 years at an annual interest rate of 5%, that $150 billion will become $507.9 billion that I will be expected to pay back while a good number of the benefactors of this $600 check will be dead. Why the f*** do the idiots in this country elect such morons for leaders!?!
Quote:
U.S. Congress to the Next Generation --Drop Dead:
Announcing the economic stimulus package agreed to last week by both parties in the House of Representatives, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi declared that typical Americans can expect to receive a "stipend" of $300 to $1,200. Stipend -- will we get a federally funded sherry hour, too? Calling a government check a "stipend," to make it seem lofty and grand, reflects the modern affection CEOs have for calling the cash they receive "compensation" rather than pay, and consultants and speakers insist on saying they are receiving "honoraria" rather than pay. There is nothing wrong with receiving pay! And no reason to employ euphemisms.
The stimulus bill will cost about $150 billion and consists entirely of deficit spending. The secondary euphemism being employed in Washington is to call the checks "tax rebates." But they are not rebates, meaning partial returns of monies paid -- they are pure borrowing. Which is to say, Congress will award most current American adults $300 to $1,200 each, then send the bill to future American adults. Suppose that instead, each American adult today set aside $300 at 5 percent interest. In 20 years, that money would grow to $800, and likely much more if invested in stocks. Such savings would be good for the U.S. economy, which, since 2001, has seen a negative national savings rate. China's national savings rate is currently almost 50 percent. Savings is one reason the Chinese economy is growing far faster than the U.S. economy; the U.S. savings rate is close to negative-4 percent, and our economic growth is sputtering.
The framers said, "We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
Today's Congress: "We mutually pledge to pretend to believe what we just promised until the first second it is politically convenient to do the opposite."
But rather than help the U.S. economy grow in a generous way that forgoes a little today to gain a lot tomorrow, the American people -- through their representatives in Congress -- just reached into the pockets of future citizens in order to spend more on themselves right now. Explain to me why this is considered a populist action by Congress?
Bear in mind, the stimulus package announced last week is only an agreement between the two parties in the House. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in the Senate currently are scrambling to add their own pet projects to the legislation -- whenever a big spending bill moves, there's always a bidding war in which Republicans and Democrats vie to see who can stage the biggest giveaway. The damage to the national debt might get worse because what's happening now is the environment Congress likes best -- an environment of zero fiscal discipline. Lobbyists for retirees, who already are subsidized by the young, are complaining that their special interest isn't being showered with free money by the stimulus bill; lobbyists for pork-barrel projects that could never withstand logical scrutiny are maneuvering to wrap them in the flag and add them to the stimulus bill. By the time the stimulus bill leaves Capitol Hill, the young might be saddled with yet more debt so that members of Congress can congratulate themselves as they hand checks to politically connected fat-cat donors or to retirees already drawing out of Social Security far more than they put in, plus interest.
Next, recall that on Jan. 4, 2007, both houses of Congress agreed with considerable fanfare on the Paygo measure, which stated that under no circumstances -- under no circumstances, never, regardless of conditions! -- would Congress enact any bill that increases the federal debt. According to the Paygo legislation, the House and Senate are forbidden even to debate legislation that would increase the debt. ("It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report if the provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net effect of increasing the deficit …") Paygo rules specify that all bills causing appropriations increases or tax favors must be offset be spending reductions or tax increases. When Paygo was enacted, many members of Congress from both parties, prominently Speaker Pelosi, patted themselves on the back in public.
How long did this incredible resolve last? Six weeks ago, Congress passed a reduction of the Alternative Minimum Tax; the bill cut taxes by $51 billion but provides no offsetting revenues. Originally, the measure would have reduced the AMT for the middle class while raising taxes by an equal amount on the upper crust of venture capitalists and hedge-fund managers. All the revenue increases ended up deleted -- hedge-fund managers showered members of Congress with campaign donations -- but the tax cuts were approved. Congress ladled out the $51 billion entirely from deficit spending, then handed the bill to the young. Now, the stimulus package goes even further, at least $150 billion in gravy without spending cuts or offsetting revenue increases. Barely 12 months after pledging never, ever again to add to the federal debt, Congress will add at least $201 billion to the federal debt. The federal deficit for the most recent fiscal year, which ended before either of the new actions, was $163 billion. Congress has, in the past six weeks alone, added more to the federal debt than the entire federal deficit for the most recent fiscal year.
It's impossible to be sure, but a rough guess might be that every dollar added to the deficit today represents two dollars subtracted from future economic growth -- which in turn means two dollars taken from the pockets of tomorrow's American adults. This is a cynical exercise, robbing future Americans in order to please voters today, and to inspire interest groups to make political donations to incumbents. When are citizens under 30 going to wake up to the disagreeable fact that the country's current leadership, of both parties, is giving them the shaft in order to heap special favors on current voters who refuse to live within their means? Then handing the young the bill.
Quote:
Rebate? Maybe You Owe the Government $150,000
One government agent believes Congress should slip a little extra something when and if they mail out those much-debated rebate checks: a $150,000 bill, payment due immediately.
"Perhaps when you send out the check, if you also sent out the $150,000 bill (debt per person) … that would get the message across," U.S. Comptroller General David Walker suggested half jokingly to lawmakers Monday. "We are a great country. We are great at spending. But, unfortunately, we are poor at saving."
National Debt, Individual Responsibility
Walker's point is simple: The national debt is out of control, and it's time to do something about it.
His unorthodox suggestion of charging $150,000 per American accounts for not only $9.2 trillion real national debt held by the U.S. government right now but also factors in the $53 trillion the government has pledged to citizens in Social Security and Medicare payments.
Funds for those programs are supposed to be accounted for in a trust fund set aside for Social Security. Instead, the government has essentially written IOUs for borrowed money.
"If they did this in the private sector," Walker told Congress, "they'd go to jail. You can't invest in your own debt."
I want to make this perfectly clear to anyone over the age of 40, I am not paying your debt. If I'm going to suffer, I don't see why you shouldn't either. And if anyone is counting on Social Security or Medicare or VA in their older years, they're a f***ing idiot.
Yeah, what Shek said - both. I don't think we should do additional tax cuts (except lowering the corporate rate to 20-25%) but definitely keep what we have. And trim trim trim. Let more money stay with the people and the states to spend.
-dale
Gee with the corporate share of federal revenues already down 2/3 in relation to wage earners since 1960 do you really think that's needed. I'd agree if we got rid of ALL corporate write offs. Corporations at that pint wouldn't since they'd be paying a about twice as much.
I'd like to see us cut back on farm subsidies to the pre 2001 levels.
I'd like to see us stop privatizing our military and start building a military that can do it's own work again. privatization has been damn expensive. We paid dearly for those cost plus contracts in Iraq because we didn't have th support infrastructure we needed in our military anymore. I don't understand stuff like giving tobacco farmers with an avg net worth of 600k govt assistance. If they cant make it sell the property.
I'd like to see the federal govt be able to negotiate with drug companies for in our craptastic prescription drug program. if they got VA prices it would save us billions
I'd like to see us roll back the 2002 tax cuts to the wealthiest. i see no reason why those who benefit the most from our system shouldn't pay back the most. i also think leaving the tax cuts in place for the middle class is critical. We lack demand in this country not capacity or capital.
I'd like to see us raise the ceiling on the social security tax. Not the whole 6% just a point or two after the cap is reached because in truth it isnt an insurance for the elderly it's monies spent the same as other tax revenues and to say it isn't is dishonest imo. We collect twice what we spend.
iid like to see more privatization of public housing. I believe this is an area the private sector would be much better at administrating. A for profit company would be more motivated to root out those destroying property or dealing drugs. they'd more likely pursue those cheating by having a live in because they have a financial motivation. it's an area of much cheating and littel catching like with the IRS.
i I know taxes are evil but....I'd like to see a small tax implemented slowly on gasoline. Call it the Liberty tax and use it to fund alternative energy research. The potential benefit to industry is greater then the silicon chip or any Appolo tech and a successful program would pay the govt back in tax revenue from profits and wages of implemented techs. It's like putting money in a savings account to get later. it is an investment in our future. We need alt fuel someday and our dependence on petro funds our foes. Any breakthrough made is less dolalrs going to the petro terrorists in the Mideast
i really don't know where all the spending cuts are going to come from people generically call for. if you take out non discretionary spending and military spending there isn't a lot of pie left
it's easy to call for the end of all HUD or all welfare but that includes old and handicapped as well as the plain ol poor. Plus when you say there is no bread let them eat cake you might not like the results. We cant expect to make millions homeless and hungry and not have riots. All over the rural south and in a few big city neighborhoods there would be real hardship and the anger that comes with that.
i think saying 'cut' spending is great...now tell me where and how much
Gee with the corporate share of federal revenues already down 2/3 in relation to wage earners since 1960 do you really think that's needed.
I have a simple way of increasing the corporate share of the federal revenue. Cut personal income taxes for the top 3 tier from 33%/28%/25% to 25%/21%/18% and you will see a dramatic rise in corporate taxes as a share of federal revenue.
__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
It is quite simple, if tax money coming in goes down, you decrease expense. If you require extra money (like to pay for an extended military deployment halfway across the world), you increase taxes to pay for it. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans though have the balls to do that cause they each got castrated long ago.
My generation of youngish people do not understand how screwed the seniors and older people are making us if things continue like they are doing. Take this "tax rebate" they are giving back to us this year. It's not a rebate, it's just adding $150 billion to the national debt. Who pays that, not the seniors, when the s*** hits the fan, they'll be dead. It will be me and anyone near my age. Not only will we have to pay the $150 billion back, we will have to pay the interest. Over 20 years at an annual interest rate of 5%, that $150 billion will become $507.9 billion that I will be expected to pay back while a good number of the benefactors of this $600 check will be dead. Why the f*** do the idiots in this country elect such morons for leaders!?!
I want to make this perfectly clear to anyone over the age of 40, I am not paying your debt. If I'm going to suffer, I don't see why you shouldn't either. And if anyone is counting on Social Security or Medicare or VA in their older years, they're a f***ing idiot.
I blame the Laffer curve. it was a big shell game to justify tax cuts. the revenue didn't come now you will be stuck with the bill yet you hear cries to increase that bill by making tax cuts permanent that would give us large deficits into my sunshine years.
02-12-2008, 06:35 AM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
