Score one for the middle class

[PLC1]

The continuing saga of overspending

I see that the feds just spent another $5,550 of my money, and yours, and yours....

Bush Signs $555 Billion Spending Bill

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush, still voicing concern about special project spending by Congress, signed a $555 billion bill Wednesday that funds the Iraq war well into 2008 and keeps government agencies running through next September.

Instead, the Congress dropped into the bill nearly 9,800 earmarks that total more than $10 billion.

"Earmarks", of course, is a synonym for pork. Some is for pork, some is to keep the war going yet another year, and some is for, for,... Well, I guess we'll never really know what the rest is for.

Is that five grand well spent?

 

[Andy]

Case and point

In 1993 the Democratic House and the Democratic Senate voted in tax hikes on the richest two percent of the population. Not a single Republican voted for the tax hikes. Despite economic horror stories, no recession followed. In fact, the economy was on its way to its longest period of growth since WWII. Within a few years the deficit was wiped out and replaced with surpluses.
But many voters swallowed Republican rhetoric about how the evil Democrats raised their taxes, and in 1994 the Rebulicans wiped the floor with the Democrats in the election. Democrats were effectively punished for bringing some fiscal sanity to America.
So yes, the American public is not terribly well informed and can easily be lied to.

All taxes hit all people. A tax on the richest 2% will hurt everyone because the entire economy is connected.

The economy was already in the longest growth period from the prior 10 years.

There never was a real surplus. Check the history of the national debt. You show me one single year in which the total national debt decreased and I'll believe there was a surplus. (hint: it was/is a lie)

"So yes, the American public is not terribly well informed and can easily be lied to. " This is the first completely true statement, and you validate it yourself. I am not entirely sure if you should take that as a compliment.

 

[jpn of Seattle]

All taxes hit all people. A tax on the richest 2% will hurt everyone because the entire economy is connected.

How did the 1993 tax hike on the richest 2 percent of Americans hurt the economy? Economic growth following that tax hike was quite impressive.

There never was a real surplus. Check the history of the national debt. You show me one single year in which the total national debt decreased and I'll believe there was a surplus. (hint: it was/is a lie)

"So yes, the American public is not terribly well informed and can easily be lied to. " This is the first completely true statement, and you validate it yourself. I am not entirely sure if you should take that as a compliment.

Oh my, aren't we snarky.
Show you a year in which the total national debt decreased? Easy:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104753.html

 

[jb_1430]

Oh my, aren't we snarky.
Show you a year in which the total national debt decreased? Easy:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104753.html

Well, not really. Total debt, on AND OFF budget
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

...............Total Debt

09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03

about a $89 B surplus in 2000 if you pretend we have 1/1-12/31 fiscal year

01/03/2000 5,751,743,092,605.50
12/29/2000 5,662,216,013,697.37

 

[PLC1]

Whether or not the debt actually went down any time in the recent past is debatable. What is not debatable is that it has been going up very quickly since 2001. What is not debatable is that it now amounts to over nine trillion dollars, or $30,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. That's $120,000 for a family of four, and it is not a secured debt. It is more like a credit card debt than a mortgage.

 

[jpn of Seattle]

Not to be partisan or anything, but history suggests that if you're worried about the debt, vote Democratic:

 

[PLC1]

Not to be partisan or anything, but history suggests that if you're worried about the debt, vote Democratic:

I see the debt went down during the Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford administrations, Republicans all. So, what happened to the GOP in the past few years? Has it changed?

 

[Andy]

Not to be partisan or anything, but history suggests that if you're worried about the debt, vote Democratic:

This is where I have a huge issue.

Imagine this...
I owe 50 thousand dollars!
Now my company last year made $500,000

Personal debt $50 Thousand.
Companies Gross $500 Thousand.
Personal debt % of Company Gross = 10%

This year my company made $1 Million in sales, and I went $5 Thousand more in debt.
So now...
Personal Debt = $55 Thousand.
Company Gross $1 Million.
Personal Debt % of Company Gross = 5.5% (a 4.5% drop!)

So I come home to my lovely wife and tell her the great news! My debt as a percentage of the companies gross sales has gone down! (I'm not married)

What does my lovely wife do? She pulls out the bank statements and says "we still owe $55 thousand, 5 grand more than last year"... Sometimes women can see through male b*****

What's my point? My point is, debt as a percentage of GDP is totally irrelevant. If our government owes 5 trillion, it still owes 5 trillion regardless if that's a higher, or lower percentage compared to GDP.

And as one of the other informed posters on here pointed out... our total debt, *not* 'on budget, off budget'... but total debt increased every year during Clinton. There was not one single year in the last 20 where the debt actually decreased. It never happened, it was a lie, it was fudging the numbers, it was a "governmental Enron" situation during the 90s. The surplus never existed. Time to open those eyes to reality

 

[Dustin]

Great news, I have always disagreed with bush's tax the poor, spare the rich policy.

 

[PLC1]

This is where I have a huge issue.

Imagine this...
I owe 50 thousand dollars!
Now my company last year made $500,000

Personal debt $50 Thousand.
Companies Gross $500 Thousand.
Personal debt % of Company Gross = 10%

This year my company made $1 Million in sales, and I went $5 Thousand more in debt.
So now...
Personal Debt = $55 Thousand.
Company Gross $1 Million.
Personal Debt % of Company Gross = 5.5% (a 4.5% drop!)

So I come home to my lovely wife and tell her the great news! My debt as a percentage of the companies gross sales has gone down! (I'm not married)

What does my lovely wife do? She pulls out the bank statements and says "we still owe $55 thousand, 5 grand more than last year"... Sometimes women can see through male b*****

What's my point? My point is, debt as a percentage of GDP is totally irrelevant. If our government owes 5 trillion, it still owes 5 trillion regardless if that's a higher, or lower percentage compared to GDP.

And as one of the other informed posters on here pointed out... our total debt, *not* 'on budget, off budget'... but total debt increased every year during Clinton. There was not one single year in the last 20 where the debt actually decreased. It never happened, it was a lie, it was fudging the numbers, it was a "governmental Enron" situation during the 90s. The surplus never existed. Time to open those eyes to reality

Except that a trillion dollars twenty years ago was a lot more than it is now, just as that $20 bill won't buy as much as it did then. Not only that, but there are more people now than then, so the debt is spread over a larger population, and...

the nation earns more money now.

The percentage of GDP is the most honest measure of the debt. When we see the percentage going up, that's a sign that the government is overspending.

 

[Andy]

Whether or not the debt actually went down any time in the recent past is debatable. What is not debatable is that it has been going up very quickly since 2001.

Granted. The solution is to cut spending. The opposite of national healthcare money grab. The opposite of blowing money on H2 or Ethanol. The opposite of farmer Ted Turner subsidies. The opposite of government paid for abortions, medical 'research'. Cut the National unEducation Association. Social Insecurity. End giving money to non-producers in our nation.

Basically cut unconstitutional spending. If we do that, the national debt will be wiped out in under 10 years I wager.

 

[Andy]

Basic Math...

Except that a trillion dollars twenty years ago was a lot more than it is now, just as that $20 bill won't buy as much as it did then. Not only that, but there are more people now than then, so the debt is spread over a larger population, and... the nation earns more money now.

The percentage of GDP is the most honest measure of the debt. When we see the percentage going up, that's a sign that the government is overspending.

I could not possibly disagree with you more. I can not even begin to fathom the logic here.

(to the wifey) Hi hon! We.. *cough* I owe $55 thousand dollars, so we need to have some kids to spread the debt over the whole family... this will lower each of our share. Ready to get close? (not the best romantic line)

I suppose there is some male logic in that... but otherwise this is completely insane.

Here's how to tell if you are over spending personally or nationally. If your debt is more now than last week, last month, or last year... you are over spending. Get this... it's the same for government! If the federal government owes more now, than last week, month, year, or decade, it's over spending!

At the end of the month, if you total up your pay checks and bills, and the total for your pay checks is lower than the total for your bills... that's over spending.

If the government outlays, not on-budget off-budget, but total outlays is more than it's receipts, that's over spending.

Population, GDP, and all other factors are completely and totally irrelevant. I don't care if you owed $10 last year and inflation was 50%, and now you owe $15 this year. You over spent by $5. You spent $5 more than you earned this year. Man this feels like a 4th grade math class... -10 + -5 is -15. Less is not more.

 

[PLC1]

Granted. The solution is to cut spending. The opposite of national healthcare money grab. The opposite of blowing money on H2 or Ethanol. The opposite of farmer Ted Turner subsidies. The opposite of government paid for abortions, medical 'research'. Cut the National unEducation Association. Social Insecurity. End giving money to non-producers in our nation.

Basically cut unconstitutional spending. If we do that, the national debt will be wiped out in under 10 years I wager.

Social security is a net provider of revenue. The feds "borrowed" $177 billion from SS last year, and still had a $300B shortfall.

The National Education Association is a union. Does it have government money? I don't think so, but maybe a little. The Department of Education, on the other hand is a government agency and does receive billions of dollars.

But, yes, the solution is to cut back spending.

 

[Andy]

Hurt yourself, tax the rich.

Great news, I have always disagreed with bush's tax the poor, spare the rich policy.

Rich people create jobs, products, services and wealth. Everything we have is made by rich people. Every job out there is because of rich people (other than farming I wager).

When you tax rich people, you only hurt yourself. In the early 90s, Clinton imposed a Yacht tax. The Yacht tax designed to only harm rich people, devastated the yacht industry leaving thousands of lower and middle class workers unemployed. Who was hurt? Rich or Lower/Middle class? Rich people just bought their Yachts elsewhere.

Here's another. Taxes on the upper class are so high, that now most CEOs are paid in stocks and other benefits. Which of course leads to CEOs having invested interest in stock manipulation. Why do you think Enron, Worldcom and Martha Stewart situations happen? Because we try and tax them, which always hurts us.

Worse, every time we do raise taxes on the rich, something amazing happens, and everyone seems clueless about it. You realize these CEOs and Business owners are.... CEOs and Business owners! So what? Well... let's say you are a business owner and your taxes go up... what do you do? "oh well, my income drops this year..."... uh no... "I'm going to raise my pay!" Yup!

That's right. When taxes go up, the rich people just raise their income. Vote themselves a pay raise. Then you complain because worker wages stay flat, benefits decrease and vacation time is reduced. Hint: every time you tax the rich, you hurt yourself.

 

[Andy]

Social security is a net provider of revenue. The feds "borrowed" $177 billion from SS last year, and still had a $300B shortfall.

The National Education Association is a union. Does it have government money? I don't think so, but maybe a little. The Department of Education, on the other hand is a government agency and does receive billions of dollars.

But, yes, the solution is to cut back spending.

Point taken. As stated, cut unconstitutional spending, of which both are. Social Insecurity is the net provider of revenue, which indicates just how out of wack our over spending is. The feds have been 'borrowing' from SS since before Reagan. Which is why so many Repugs get so angry when Dems make accusation of robbing SS, when they themselves have been doing it for the last 30 years. (repugs have been doing it too, but you don't see them hypocritically pointing fingers)