Perhaps the net financial gain for the US from ending the most God awful waste of trillions of dollars and human life. And, those who have to be on one side or the other instead of looking at the current administration with complete contempt for their hubris and money wasting, increased government, non republican values. Neither side has an answer about taxes. One side might give us a chance at recovery by not wasting trillions in iraq. c
Well, for one thing, the President has no power to raise or lower taxes. Only the Congress can do that. He/she does have the ability to reduce spending by the executive branch, however the Republicans have consistently outspent their available revenue while pretending they'll reduce the size of government to the tune of an additional $3 TRILLION in national debt in this administration lone. That's inflationary. So what did they do? They redefined the meaning of inflation so we won't know it's upon us until it's too obvious to ignore - like now. Laughably, they call all of this 'conservatism' when really it's just pandering. Why doesn't this concern you too? For those who have no sympathy for others who bought houses that they cannot afford and now face bankruptcy, how can they have sympathy for an entire political party that ascribes to that very same strategy for running our entire government? True fiscal conservatism would be living within our means, and that means cutting costs, which the Republicans have consistently failed to do, and/or raising revenue, which the Republicans have also failed to do. Consistently. For decades. Think Reagan and his "voodoo economics", which was an entirely appropriate description for it. To just about anyone with any fiscal sense, taxes don't matter as much as inflation. You can make money to pay taxes, but inflation is accretive. Or, to quote the first Clinton administration's famous line, "It's the economy, stupid".
i am more worried about the unsustainable piling on of debt. bush more than doubled the debt. it must be stopped. if you can do it with spending cuts fine but even ronald reagan failed to cut spending. since its not realistic to think it can be done with spending cuts what is the solution? "Bush Borrowed More Than All Previous Presidents Combined, Group Says By Melanie Hunter CNSNews.com Senior Editor November 04, 2005 (CNSNews.com) - President Bush and the current administration have borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than the previous 42 presidents combined, a group of conservative to moderate Democrats said Friday. Blue Dog Coalition, which describes itself as a group "focused on fiscal responsibility," called the administration's borrowing practices "astounding." According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion."
apparently 45% of the nations income going to the government aint enough, they need more to take care of you
You're right. I think it is a combination of things. Most people cannot do their own taxes, so they have only a dim idea of the effect of changes. Taxes involve numbers, so that automatically eliminates a large part of the country from any comprehension. Then there is the fact that most people pay little or nothing in income taxes. Their attitude is give me more. The democrats have pretty much stopped even pretending that they are interested in anyone who actually pays taxes, except for the Warren Buffett super rich. The democrat platform is basically vote us in and we will take the rich people's money and give it to you. That is why most Obama supporters were not fazed by the odious Rev. Wright. They agree with him, as does obama. They view you as the enemy, pure and simple, and they think you should be grateful they only want your money. That attitude explains why the democrats advance so many tax ideas that are economic nonsense. They don't care if it wrecks the economy or produces subpar growth. The idea is to punish those who are not dependent on government. At some point those who are paying taxes will wise up or get fed up. Our system depends largely on voluntary compliance. The IRS cannot begin to audit more than a handful of returns. If people begin to get the idea they are getting screwed and others, like illegal immigrants, are not pulling their weight, compliance rates will fall drastically. People will start looking for ways to generate income that can either be hidden or taxes on it evaded.
I am one who cares what the tax policies of the candidates are, and i much prefer the direct taxation model proposed by the democrat candidates. I also prefer to use a different, less misleading, definition of "tax" then you. When you substitute borrowing for direct taxation the net change in effective taxation is equal to the total amount borrowed plus the total interest minus the direct tax relief given. In the case of the bush administration, because the amount borrowed has so greatly exceeded the amount of direct tax relief given, the net total tax increase per capita has been exceedingly large. The Bush administration has elected to collect this tax increase via inflation spread out over many years. (In other words, they have elected to monetize the debt from borrowing.) This results in a somewhat different distribution of tax burden than would have been the case had all of the government's revenue been obtained through direct taxation rather than a major part being collected via indirect taxation. There have been effectively no net tax cuts during this administration. On the contrary, and in contrast with incorrect popular opinion, net taxation, which includes the sum of direct and indirect taxation, has increased dramatically during the Bush administration. Whether or not the Bush "tax cuts" are repealed amounts to the question of whether you would rather pay the tax directly without interest, or pay it indirectly via inflation with interest tacked on. Personally i prefer direct taxation whenever the burden is manageable because the net cost is lower. I would prefer even more if military spending was drastically cut so that we could enjoy a reduction in both direct and indirect taxation. I am a conservative in the Russell Kirk sense, but i can not identify with this present Republican administration which seems to be best described as a bunch of Fascists who have lied to us, run rough shod over our liberties, destroyed our currency, committed war crimes, and left us with dis-functional government agencies and heavily in debt.
Kudos for trying to think out of the box but nah, crappy theory. The Treasury market is the only arbiter of debt cost and yields are on their ass. This bout of inflation has many causes but they're primarily monetary and global rather than fiscal. As a persistent Bond short I hate to admit it but the demand for government backed paper is so great we could run up even bigger deficits without an iota of effect on yields. Public debt in America isn't much higher per capita than Europe and is much lower here than in Japan. Hence to say that there's a 'Bush" effect is nonsensical. Obama is just a racist class warfare cunt who'll strike a conciliatory pose to be electable. I'm from Illinois and I've seen the effects of Chicago Democrats on the state budget. Obama is Castro......
Pa(b)st, I must say, your posts never fail to entertain me, and always contain at least a grain of truth.
========================= Barak Hussein also was snared by his recession talk tounge; Mara B-CNBC asked incrediously if he was going to raise capital gains[recession?], he could not even give a straight ,truth ful answer. And he /Hillary cant even grasp the simple fact companys like XOM,BP..... are 95%+ are owned by institutions/indivuiduals/pension plans. So that big oil hater Barak Hussein,, well to call him thinking , ok thinking, but not much thinking.LOL Excellant thinking= PaPrime