Island Dog

It is you that do address the fact that the added revenue created by investment from the tax cuts is not even replacing the lost revenue from the tax cuts. For every 2 dollars we loose in tax revenue from the tax cuts only 1 dollar is being generated in new taxes from increased economic activity. The Comptroller General has documented that fact. The old Supply Side economic theory did not produce the added revenue in the 1980's when Reagan tried it is not working for Bush today! It is costing us money to continue the tax cuts. We MUST increase tax revenue and cut spending to balance the Federal Budget!

Paladin 77

"Every time a new job opens up it means a "rich" person is spending money."

Where do you up with this BS? The most fundamental driver is DEMAND created by added spending. When added spending creates the need for more production new jobs are created unless higher productivity enables the higher production to meet the higher demand. 70% of the economy is driven by demand. You are using the old supply side theory that failed in the 1980's and has failed today. You are supporting the Voodoo economics of Reagan. Bush 41 was correct.

Can you read, Gene? I'm beginning to wonder.

Reagan cuts tax rates drastically. The proportion of tax revenues collected from the wealthy goes up by nearly 10%. Isn't that what you want? The wealthy to pay their "fair" (read, bigger) share?

You can't have a deficit without choosing to spend more than you collect. Too little in taxes has never been the problem - too much spending by Congressmen and Senators drunk on OPM has always been the problem. Much of that spending now does nothing but provide employment for thousands of people whose job consists of moving paper from the inbox to the outbox without benefit of critical thought. Any real "work" they do now involves justifying their existence and keeping the gravy train rolling.

70% of the tax cuts go to the wealthy. When all the cuts are in place even a greater % will go to the wealthy. The rational for the tax cuts was to return a SURPLUS that did not exist. Bush told us we were overtaxing people, especially the top income group and that was creating this $5.7 Trillion Surplus. There was not one cent of a Surplus and we should do as Sec. O'Neil and Alan Greenspan recommended which was to tie the tax cuts to available surplus to pay for them. No Surplus, No tax Cuts.

Where do you up with this BS? The most fundamental driver is DEMAND created by added spending. When added spending creates the need for more production new jobs are created unless higher productivity enables the higher production to meet the higher demand. 70% of the economy is driven by demand. You are using the old supply side theory that failed in the 1980's and has failed today. You are supporting the Voodoo economics of Reagan. Bush 41 was correct.

But the head of the company or the business owner has to lay out the money to hire the person instead of keeping it in his pocket.Yes, I am supporting Voodoo economics. Just cause you say it failed does not mean it is true.

When President Ronald Reagan came to office in 1981, the economy was mired in high interest rates, high unemployment and stagflation produced by policies of the 1970s. Reagan cut the highest individual tax rate in 1981 from 70 to 50 percent, and cut the lowest rate from 14 to 11 percent. In 1986 he further cut the top rate from 50 to 28 percent.
Reagan's tax rate cuts helped produce the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. Total tax revenues grew by over 99 percent during the 1980s, and the economy grew by an average of 4 percent each year. As we saw in the 1960s, the wealthiest Americans paid the most taxes following Reagan's rate cuts. The top 10 percent of income earners went from paying 48 percent of all taxes in 1981, to over 57 percent by 1988.

This is what you call a failure then we need more of them.

Why am I the only one on the planet who thinks that a budget that amounts to $9000 spent for every man, woman and child is INSANE? I know I'm not, but it sure seems that way sometimes.

Gidion

You can not measure the merit of the budget by expressing it as an amount spent per person. What in the correct Average?

If you look at the Budget you will see most of it goes for things that we can not avoid. Eliminating all the waste will not balance the budget. The fact is we cut taxes predicated on some non-existent Surplus that needed to be returned and created a structural deficit. When you cut your income and increases spending you get just what Bush has done. He had a BALANCED Budget in 2000. This is the same thing that took place during the 1980’s for the very same reasons.

Col, I CAN measure in the amount of spending. It is gross inefficiency.

It's not just what the money is spent on, but HOW it is spent within those agencies. I can tell you firsthand that the foodstamp threshhold (for families, not individuals) is set FAR too high...and the amounts received are WAY too much. I feed my family on less than $300 a month. If I were working minimum wage, I could receive more than TWICE that total in food stamps.

School spending is another area. I know of a school district that was spending $1200 per year per student on curriculum. I can get a high quality curriculum for about $200; but a variety of choices are available for under $500.

The fact is, our government is bloated, Col, and it has no interest in cutting spending. And it's not a partisan; both Democrats and Republicans are equally culpable. We need to cut spending DRASTICALLY before we even CONSIDER raising taxes.

Gideon

My son is disabled and receives Food Stamps. He receives the grand sum of $660 per month from SS Disability and gets $70 per month for Food Stamps. If you believe either the amount he receives from Food Stamps or disability is lavish you must be living in a different country then the United States.

Most of the funding for schools comes from local & State taxes and has nothing to do with the Federal deficit.

Here is what the Fed spends our tax dollars on and you can not cut anything close to what is needed to balance the Federal Budget.


http://www.federalbudget.com/

Most of the funding for schools comes from local & State taxes and has nothing to do with the Federal deficit.

Your own link says you're full of it. Go look at the page. On there you will find a line called "Dept of Education". If school funding has nothing to do with the Fed deficit, then why is it listed as part of it?

Lets hear you talk your way out of this one.

drmiler

You show your ignorance with each word you write. Have you looked at how small a portion of the Federal Budget that is? The Total Funding for education from the Federal Government is $61 Billion out of a total budget of $2.2 Trillion which is less then 3% of the federal budget. In Most school districts the federal money paid for remedial math and reading and makes up about 7% of school district budgets. That means 93% of the money for school districts comes from LOCAL and STATE MONEY!

I know this is correct since I was the Chief Operating Officer for the third largest school district in Pennsylvania for over 12 years. One of my responsibilities was the financial management of the district including the budget which was over $125 Million dollars in my last year with the district.

drmiler You show your ignorance with each word you write. Have you looked at how small a portion of the Federal Budget that is? The Total Funding for education from the Federal Government is $61 Billion out of a total budget of $2.2 Trillion which is less then 3% of the federal budget. In Most school districts the federal money paid for remedial math and reading and makes up about 7% of school district budgets. That means 93% of the money for school districts comes from LOCAL and STATE MONEY!

No! You show "YOUR" ignorance! You made a blanket statement, and I quote "Most of the funding for schools comes from local & State taxes and has nothing to do with the Federal deficit." end quote. "If" it had nothing to do with the federal deficit then "why" is it even mentioned on the page you linked? Small a portion? According to "you", it should be zero!

I don't care if you were in charge of the "largest" school district in PA or not. It makes "no" difference to the point I'm making. You're "still" wrong!

I see you're "still" at it. When you start losing the arguement, you abandon the thread. Coward!

drmiler

What is wrong with you. The total amount spent for education by the Fed is $61Billion. We had a deficit of $600Billion. It is sad when someone can not even read a graph!

drmiler What is wrong with you. The total amount spent for education by the Fed is $61Billion. We had a deficit of $600Billion. It is sad when someone can not even read a graph!

What is wrong with YOU? You stated that the Dept of Education had NOTHING to do with the deficit! And with "your" own link I proved that statement WRONG! It's a sad day indeed when you can't even admit to a wrong statement!

Most of the funding for schools comes from local & State taxes and has nothing to do with the Federal deficit.

You have "still" NOT explained your way out of this stupid statement.

drmiler

In 2000 when the budget was balanced we were spending a similar amount on Education by the Federal Government. How is it that the budget was balanced in 2000 with our spending for education? The reason the budget is not balanced is the Bush tax cuts together with increased spending in Iraq, Homeland Security, Interest on the growing debt and record high PORK etc.

drmiler In 2000 when the budget was balanced we were spending a similar amount on Education by the Federal Government. How is it that the budget was balanced in 2000 with our spending for education? The reason the budget is not balanced is the Bush tax cuts together with increased spending in Iraq, Homeland Security, Interest on the growing debt and record high PORK etc.

You are STILL dancing around what I said without admiting to the truth of it! Education IS part of the deficit. This has nothing to do with the budget balancing. "If" it's part of the budget....it's "part" of the deficit. "Your" Very own statement Makes the following quote an error at best, or a lie at worst.

Most of the funding for schools comes from local & State taxes and has nothing to do with the Federal deficit.

This is "your" statement btw....not mine.

drmiler

Every thing in the budget is part of what we spend. We are spending MORE then we Tax. You can point to anything in the budget that is part of the deficit. My point is that education spending was taking place even when the budget was balanced. In 2000 we were not spending over $100 Billion on a War. We were not spending as much on Homeland security. We were not spending as much on PORK. The spending on Education DID NOT create the current deficit.

The issue is that we SPEND more then we TAX. That must STOP and it will require BOTH spending cuts and ADDED Federal Tax Revenue!

drmiler Every thing in the budget is part of what we spend. We are spending MORE then we Tax. You can point to anything in the budget that is part of the deficit. My point is that education spending was taking place even when the budget was balanced. In 2000 we were not spending over $100 Billion on a War. We were not spending as much on Homeland security. We were not spending as much on PORK. The spending on Education DID NOT create the current deficit. The issue is that we SPEND more then we TAX. That must STOP and it will require BOTH spending cuts and ADDED Federal Tax Revenue!

Then "retract" your original ignorant statement.

Most of the funding for schools comes from local & State taxes and has nothing to do with the Federal deficit.

Drmiler

There is NOTHING to retract. MOST of the funding for our schools comes from State and Local Taxes and is not the reason the Federal Budget deficit. If we ENDED all Federal Education spending we would still have a major annual Budget Deficit! Things like the Iraq War and PORK plus the loss in revenue from the tax cuts have created the deficit. If we had the $250m Billion in lost revenue from the tax cuts, and the $150 Billion we are spending in Iraq and the $30 Billion on Pork we would be a lot closer to a balanced budget!

In 2000 when the budget was balanced we were spending a similar amount on Education by the Federal Government.

I can't remember a time since President Johnson screwed up the budget that is has been balanced. You say the budget was balanced in 2000. Where did you get your data? The data I have for 2000 shows an estimated budget loss not a balance. And since the President did nothing for or against the economy other than one tax increase that ended up killing the economy all we seem to be seeing is the results from the Reagan tax cuts paying themselves off. Below is a copy of part of the federal budget written by the Clinton administration.

Table II-1. RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUS
Dollar amounts in billions)
Estimates

2000
Receipts 1,883.0
Outlays 1,765.7
Surplus 0.0
On-Budget Deficit(-) -12.2


I could not get the table to show up correctly so I truncated it.

My son is disabled and receives Food Stamps. He receives the grand sum of $660 per month from SS Disability and gets $70 per month for Food Stamps. If you believe either the amount he receives from Food Stamps or disability is lavish you must be living in a different country then the United States.

OK, I am going to have to ask you to READ my comments, not summarize them. If you had, you would have noticed this qualifier:
(for families, not individuals), and saved yourself the embarrassment of a really, really stupid reply. I was referring to the amount for FAMILIES, which I can tell you from experience is FAR too high.

Stop picking and choosing what you want to see. I was not addressing the food stamp totals for individuals (although I still don't believe in the food stamp program in general), but was referring to the "top end" totals, which could use some trimming.

Drmiler There is NOTHING to retract. MOST of the funding for our schools comes from State and Local Taxes and is not the reason the Federal Budget deficit. If we ENDED all Federal Education spending we would still have a major annual Budget Deficit! Things like the Iraq War and PORK plus the loss in revenue from the tax cuts have created the deficit. If we had the $250m Billion in lost revenue from the tax cuts, and the $150 Billion we are spending in Iraq and the $30 Billion on Pork we would be a lot closer to a balanced budget!

You're an idiot, and you can't read either. Nowhere did I or you (for that matter) mention it was the cause of the fed deficit. Your statement was it had "nothing" to do with it"!

Per usual when you start losing the battle, you cut and run!