| Author |
Message |
    
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 4859
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 8:11 am: |     |
quote:....The budget was in surplus by $127 billion in fiscal year 2001, the last budget prepared by the Clinton administration and the fourth consecutive year with a surplus. In April 2001, shortly after taking office, the Bush administration forecast a surplus of $334 billion in 2003..... [they were wrong: now it's a $455 billion deficit]
The budget office calculated that 53 percent of the deterioration was caused by the weak economy and the resulting lower tax receipts, 23 percent by tax cuts and 24 percent by higher spending for the war, domestic security and other items.....
Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, said: "There is no excuse for a $450 billion record deficit this year. Sept. 11 didn't give us that deficit. The poor people didn't give us that deficit. The deficit is the result mainly of massive, irresponsible tax cuts for the richest Americans and the lack of any real plan to boost the economy and put people back to work."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/16/politics/16BUDG.html?pagewanted=2&hp |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 1589
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 9:38 am: | |
a surplus of $127 billion, or a $455 billion deficit
So... what's the big deal? Hey, look what great interest rates we have now. 
Dave,
If you were to try and put those numbers in perspective for the average worker in America, it would probably show up more like last year you had $127.00 in the bank, this year you owe the bank $455.00.
Given the unearned income (taxes) government gets (guaranteed) from us each year, vs. the hard earned income (not guaranteed) the average worker earns, how do you think this surplus/deficit really sits with the average worker?
Thanks for the information, but can you tell us what this deficit means to you personally ... |
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 4860
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 10:07 am: | |
To me personally it means we're valuing wealth over work and giving more to those who don't need it with lavish tax cuts for the rich. |
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 682
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 10:19 am: | |
It's actually a total loss of $789 billion ($334 + $455).
According to Dave's post 53% of that $789 is due to the economy and 47% is because of Bush policy ($370 billion). |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1044
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 10:32 am: | |
what it means for us personally, start with we don't have enough money to fund our schools and there's nowhere to go and ask for it. |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 231
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 11:41 am: | |
To me personally, it means my property taxes are likely to go up even more than usual. That's because the state can't provide as much funding for the towns and schools, because the feds can't provide as much funding to the states.
See, trickle-down economics at work.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him |
newjerz
Citizen
Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 23
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 1:09 pm: | |
I have no problem with an income tax per se, but I do think that the Federal government collects too much tax revenue. I favor the Bush tax cuts, but I would have no problem if this corresponded with a NJ income tax increase. That way, those spending the money collected from us would have to be more responsive to our wishes as to how it is spent. Furthermore, NJ representatives would spend the money in a manner consistent with NJ's best interests. I also think that it would cut out some of the bureaucratic waste that occurs because the Federal government is such a huge institution.
I do have to make one comment on the assertion that the tax cuts prove that wealth is valued over work. Those who pay income tax for the most part do work, and work longer hours than most Americans. It is not uncommon for people working in the financial sector to work 10-12 hr days, a far cry from the 9-5 with an hour lunch break that most Americans consider the standard working day. The same can be said for many lawyers. Doctors perform some of the most technical, specialized, and valuable work in this country. Although you might think that they are overcompensated for the work that they do, it is dishonest to claim that they don't work.
The point is, these "wealthy" Americans may not be in front of a blast furnace but the work they do is both incredibly valuable to our society and is work that only a small percentage of the population has the skill and education to perform. It should not be belittled or ridiculed.
Now if you want to say that these Americans should contribute more of their income to providing social services for those who are not well off that is one thing, but just keep in mind that what these people do is really what keeps this place going.
There are two sides to a deficit, either too much is going out or not enough is coming in. I think a compelling argument could be made that there is too much going out. In 1999, the richest 0.5% of taxpayers, paid 28% of the total tax revenue. The top 50% paid 96% of the total tax revenue.* That means that over 50% of the population contributed next to nothing towards the running of our government. Obviously it would be absurd to make someone who makes $5000 a year pay taxes, but also consider that the wealthiest 50% of the country is responsible for supporting the other half of society. I think that it is disingenuous for Rangle to say the "poor didn't give us the deficit". The poor also haven't contributed to the functioning of our government and in fact are one of the main costs. I think it is in our best interest as Americans and human beings to make sure that our fellow man does not suffer, but I also think that people expect the government to take care of them.
I will mention again my time teaching in the Bronx this winter. 80% of the school qualified for free and reduced lunch, so we're not talking about an affluent population. Yet many many students had designer clothing and shoes, cellphones, & jewelry. I am not suggesting that if they did without these things, they would be considerably better off, but to me it is indicative of a skewed set of values. That is not the way to be self-sufficient. You might say that the wealthy do not "need" the money to buy another BMW, but then these poor people surely do not need these luxury items either.
I guess, rather than bashing those who pay taxes and ridicule them for being selfish, we (I do not pay much in taxes) should show some gratitude. Ok, I've rambled long enough.
*http://www.law.wayne.edu/mcintyre/text/in_the_news/wsj-tax_poor.pdf |
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 4861
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 1:36 pm: | |
Here's a good snapshot table of the Bush tax plan to give money to the wealthiest. About half of Americans (48%) will receive less than $100 tax cut while the top 1% get to bank an average $30,000 windfall.
http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0103.htm |
newjerz
Citizen
Username: Newjerz
Post Number: 24
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 1:47 pm: | |
The point is, Bush is not "giving" money to the wealthiest, he is not taking it from them. That money isn't coming out of anyone's pocket to go to them.
No one is going to be poorer because of the tax cut. The Federal government simply will not have as much to spend, which, on balance, is a good thing. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 466
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 1:57 pm: | |
thank you newjerz. Very well put. |
#9Dream
Citizen
Username: 9dream
Post Number: 470
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 2:03 pm: | |
And that goes to the heart of the real motivation for this tax cut, which is not to "stimulate growth." It's to cut spending on programs that the Republicans wouldn't dare try to cut in any above-board manner. The tax cut causes a deficit, which forces Congress to make "sacrifices." Pooey. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3218
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 2:05 pm: | |
Newjerz, the problem is that there is no reduction in spending to go with the reduced revenue, which is why we will have a record deficit. Also, when you factor in the effect of payroll taxes (a nice way to say Social Security) the less affluent pay around the same percentage of their income in Federal taxes as the wealthy.
I agree that many of the truly wealthy (say the top 1%) work very hard. However, many of the working poor do also, grabbing every minute of overtime they can get and often working a second job to make ends meet.
Why do people such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet oppose the tax cut? Those two are way up there on the Fortune list of the wealthiest Americans.
|
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 4862
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 2:10 pm: | |
Gates and Buffet oppose it because it's bad for business to give money back to the wealthy rather than a broader base of consumers. But W apparently doesn't care about the economy. I'm beginnig to sense the beginning of the end for Bush. |
James
Citizen
Username: Mcgregorj
Post Number: 2
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 2:14 pm: | |
New Jerz:
(1) I think the reason why MD’s, JD’s, etc… are seen as not really doing “work” in the same way as your typical construction worker, fry cook, etc… has to do with the environment that they work in rather than the hours or nature of the work itself. If you divide jobs by the power that the individual has to make their own decisions on the job, their power relationship with their boss, the real distinction between the types of work comes into focus.
The fry cook may only work 8 hours with 2 breaks, but he has no control over his environment. The manager assigns him a task that he completes – according to a (more or less) set formula. This defines the working class. The doctor, lawyer, certified public accountant, senator, college professor, president, etc… decide how they want to get things done. Nobody says, “you have to do it like *this*.” Michael Zweig, a professor at SUNY, has written a great book, “The Working Class Majority”, on this subject.
(2) I think that the second issue that leads to “belittling” of the wealthy is the fact that they don’t actually *produce* the wealth that they enjoy. The economic gains that nations around the world have made were created (not the ideas, but rather the capital that drives economic progress) by people who were in front of a blast furnace, etc…
(3) I heard about an interesting book on NPR which dealt with image and the ways in which “poor” people spend their money. I’m trying hard to remember what it’s called.
|
James
Citizen
Username: Mcgregorj
Post Number: 4
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 2:19 pm: | |
There's nothing inherently wrong with working hard and becoming wealthy - but people should make sure that their pursuit of wealth isn't actually hurting anyone else...
http://www.responsiblewealth.org/ |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 467
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 2:42 pm: | |
James I agree with some of what you said but I take issue that the wealth that is being created in this country today is somehow less valuable than the value created by producing goods. Face it our society is a "service" oriented society today. The "ideas" being formulated today are no less valuable than the products that were produced yesterday.
|
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 233
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 2:51 pm: | |
newjerz wrote
quote:I have no problem with an income tax per se, but I do think that the Federal government collects too much tax revenue. I favor the Bush tax cuts, but I would have no problem if this corresponded with a NJ income tax increase. That way, those spending the money collected from us would have to be more responsive to our wishes as to how it is spent. Furthermore, NJ representatives would spend the money in a manner consistent with NJ's best interests. I also think that it would cut out some of the bureaucratic waste that occurs because the Federal government is such a huge institution.
I would agree if you were talking about any state other than NJ (maybe LA as well). Any state that needs to and can't outright outlaw "pay to play" has a real systemic problem on their hands. I've never seen such overt corruption and backwashing as here in NJ.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him |
James
Citizen
Username: Mcgregorj
Post Number: 5
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 2:52 pm: | |
sportsnut: Thanks. Still, even with the transition from production to service economies, the people who are actually creating the wealth are quite often not the ones becoming wealthy. The service sector in the USA accounts for at least 2/3 of the economy - that’s a lot of people. |
Hank Zona
Citizen
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 653
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 2:56 pm: | |
Actually heavy reliance on a service economy may not be the best thing possible. There have been some studies and theories comparing the rise and fall of the British Empire (economically) and our own, and the beginning of the slide for the British economy was due in part to their swing from a producer economy to a service economy. The additional costs across the board in such a switch hurt their economy on a number of fronts. The same may be said for our economy as we have a large trade imbalance, need to import more raw materials and finished products and lose jobs to overseas, and no longer just manufacturing but now technology and "service" jobs as well (if anyone is familiar with the farming out of tech and customer service work to India and South Korea and other countries). Yes, its in some cases comparing apples and oranges, and no, I dont think we are in an economic freefall that will threaten our position as the world's top economy, but the comparisons are noteworthy. |
Tommy Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 237
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 5:40 pm: | |
I think it's silly to argue over whose contributions to society are greater. We need executives, doctors, lawyers, construction workers, nurses' aids, and day laborers. Without anyone, we all suffer.
I don't object to some people making more money, based on their education, qualifications, aspirations, etc.
But I'd like to address the issue of taxes. I do think that if you are wealthy, you have an increased debt to society. The less fortunate need your help and gratitude. And since you have your needs taken care of, you can and ought to pay more taxes.
I agree that poor people sometimes make some weird decisions about their necessities and their luxuries. But what can we do, make laws about that? That's a hell of a slippery slope.
Tom Reingold
|
nova87
Citizen
Username: Nova87
Post Number: 232
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 6:44 pm: | |
Why do you believe the wealthy have an "increased debt to society?" Let's take your argument to an extreme. What if you make a good living say 150K per year and you choose to live in a moderately priced home and drive a moderately priced car etc. You are saying that since that person can afford to pay more they ought to. Now contrast that to a person who is earning the same and lives in a more expensive home and drives a more expensive car. They can't pay more without giving up what they have. To me trying to dictate what a person can and cannot have through legislation is also a very slippery slope, no?
I think that people have this misguided notion that the wealthy don't pay enough, they do. At what point does it stop? Actually as someone once pointed out only a small portion of the tax revenue is doled out to the less fortunate. So that begs the question, "where is all this money being spent?" Like newjerz says spending must be cut back as well. |
Kope
Citizen
Username: Kope
Post Number: 15
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 6:54 pm: | |
Newjerz brings to focus some valid points. Why can't Charlie Rangle and his friends stop spending as agressively? Remember, it is the Ccongress that holds the purse strings.
Had a chance to watch "Mr. Goes To Washington," the other night. Things haven't changed.
1.)It is a textbook principle of prudent fiscal policy that budget deficits are appropriate in times of war and recession. Without doubt, the war on terrorism and the lingering effects of the recession continue to exert a large influence on the federal budget. To insist on budget balance in difficult times would mistakenly sacrifice the greater goals of economic growth and full employment.
2.)The deficit must be evaluated relative to the size of the economy. The federal budget deficit represents 4.2 percent of the nation's $11 trillion economy. Such a deficit is very manageable. Our economy has handled larger deficits in six of the past 20 years, all in the aftermath of recessions.
3.)Under the president's proposals, the deficit will shrink from 4.2 percent of gross domestic product in 2004 to 1.7 percent in 2008. The key to achieving this is more-rapid economic growth, which will bring in more tax revenue, together with restraint in the growth of government spending. Because the deficit is shrinking, the accumulated level of national debt is not expected to become problematic. For example in 2008 it will represent 40 percent of annual GDP, which is almost exactly the average since 1950.
So, all things being relative, the president sems to be fiscally responsive while Congress isn't. They do complain a lot louder, Presidents typically don't complain, they lead.
|
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 315
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 7:58 pm: | |
God what a load. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 4
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 9:13 pm: | |
I am afraid that all those who claim that these immense deficits will rein in Federal spending are quite wrong. Historically, the size of the deficit has had no effect on the level of federal spending as a percentage of the GNP.
What these deficits do accomplish is an intergenerational transfer of wealth from the next generation to this one. We will not have to pay back that debt, but our children sure will. |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 234
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 10:03 pm: | |
Kope,
You're blaming the Democrats in Congress for the spending at a time when all three branches of Government are dominated by Republicans. Darn those Senate and House minority leaders. Them and all their power. Where are the Congressional Republicans cutting spending to the bone? Oh wait, Republicans have pork too? Who'd have thought.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 236
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 10:13 pm: | |
Also, the problem with the President's projections is that there are lots of "sunset" provisions whereby suts in taxes end. For exmaple, by 2007 (or 2008), the capital gains tax goes to zero. But the next year, the law expires. So the tax comes back, taxes increase, revenue increases, and the deficit shrinks. The only problem is that any congresscritter worth his salt is going to vote to continue the tax cut, or risk getting voted out for "increasing taxes." So the projections that Bush is making are based on faulty (or shaky, at best) assumptions.
The Democrats might be the "tax and spend" party, however the Republicans seem to be the "borrow and spend" party. Either we pay today, or our kids pay tomorrow. Or maye one of Bush's (or Gore's) daughters will straighen up, get elected, and put the growing buurden on her kids' generation.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 1818
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 10:14 pm: | |
Help me out, there's a name for this - spending more, while telling people that they don't have to pay for it.
Or, to put it another way - Is there, in fact, a free lunch? |
melidere
Citizen
Username: Melidere
Post Number: 606
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 10:30 pm: | |
Now if you want to say that these Americans should contribute more of their income to providing social services for those who are not well off that is one thing, but just keep in mind that what these people do is really what keeps this place going.
the people who really keep this place 'going' are the plumbers. |
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 683
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 - 10:51 pm: | |
"The world needs ditch diggers too!"
-Judge Smails
Caddyshack |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page