Oops...must have been a typo

[The Sheck]

White House forgets to add in report of $44 TRILLION deficit to Bush's tax cut.


http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=us&cat=u_s__budget

[DogStarMan]

No shit. Who cares about a fuckin' tax cut. I just want my library to have the funding it needs to stay open. I'm pissed.

[cockney rebel]

Originally posted by The Sheck
White House forgets to add in report of $44 TRILLION deficit to Bush's tax cutAmericans have had their eyes taken off the ball by GWB's "Weapons of Mass Distraction"

[IPrayForSound]

When you get to the point where Bush and his administration have done so many things that you think place him firmly in the category of "complete fucking asshole", do you still have to justify yourself everytime you say something akin to "Fuck Bush" or "If he died due to something that I had nothing to do with (and even if I could, I would take no part in any such thing) I'd probably turn on the Man Show so I wouldn't look like an insensitive bastard while I laughed and laughed and drank and drank"?

Just wondering.

[Sovrana]

Let's see...this administration forged documents to get the approval for an attack on Iraq and now eliminate documents to get an approval of a tax cut.

I hope the Democratic candidates are keeping a tally sheet on this administration. I like to think that such acts as well as stuffing the pockets of Cheney, Inc would secure a Bush loss next time....however, I still have a feeling most people will support this administration.

So....would you like me to knit a sweater, scarf or hat with the wool that is being pulled over your eyes? grrrrr! :mad:

[BigSugar]

I'd like a hat/scarf combo....gotta match.

[DudeMan]

The $44 Trillion figure is tenuous at best, but the basic tenets of this 'supressed' report are pretty straightforward and no big secret. We have pay-as-you-go social security and medicare systems that currently pay out to retirees more than they put in, (if I remember correctly, the current inflection point where you start being a welfare recipient vs. what you put in is about 4 years, give or take).

That's great if you're a current retiree living off of our collective SS tax contributions, but with the aging demographics we'll be seeing in the next 50 years, that means something's gotta give -- a) reduced benefits, b) higher taxes, or c) (my pref) a re-vamped system that allows people to invest a portion into the stock market if they so choose. Or d) allow for greater immigration so the worker-to-retiree ratio doesn't fall as much. I like that idea too.

Goosing the economy somewhat by cutting taxes is also a good idea, by the way. If you can increase the growth of the economy by a modest amount each year, say 0.5-1%, that adds up to an increment of $1.1 Trillion per year within 10 years. That extra wealth also helps to cushion the blow of pay-as-you-go generation-gap programs like this.

[tobedawg]

or "If he died due to something that I had nothing to do with (and even if I could, I would take no part in any such thing)

Be Careful!! Homeland Security is Watching YOU!!

[MonkeyGirl]

Is the administration aware that the economy sucks the big one now? It's like they're trying to see how much they can f*ck up in how little time.

I say Dubya was much better off buying the board game "Risk" than trying to play President.

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by DudeMan
Goosing the economy somewhat by cutting taxes is also a good idea, by the way. If you can increase the growth of the economy by a modest amount each year, say 0.5-1%, that adds up to an increment of $1.1 Trillion per year within 10 years. That extra wealth also helps to cushion the blow of pay-as-you-go generation-gap programs like this.

Why do we need to goose the economy? And if your tax cut leads to a deficit and you have to borrow from the SS fund to cover it, how does that "cushion" anything?

[Danosaur]

I hope the Democratic candidates are keeping a tally sheet on this administration. I like to think that such acts as well as stuffing the pockets of Cheney, Inc would secure a Bush loss next time....however, I still have a feeling most people will support this administration.

It's the same on both sides. Clinton did plenty of shady things and he will go down in history as one of the most popular presidents ever. I hated him most of his two terms, but I admired his speaking ability and I enjoyed the social liberalism of his administration. Now I almost want him back. It's sad how much I am willing to compromise for a little social liberalism. I could forgive Bush for all his war mongering if he wasn't such a good old boy Christian, and if he would support states rights like a real republican. But it's the day of the redneck and I just have to keep cool for a while. O' well.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by RichmondVA


Why do we need to goose the economy? And if your tax cut leads to a deficit and you have to borrow from the SS fund to cover it, how does that "cushion" anything?
Lowering marginal tax rates increases incentives and thereby slightly increases the long-term growth rate of the economy, which has averaged about 3% since WW2. If that natural growth rate can be goosed up a little higher, that adds up considerably over time. And it's the incremental growth in turn that makes the economy bigger that would help it to absorb the tab of this looming SS deficit.

Over time, the tax cut should largely or mostly 'pay for' itself, if that's the way you look at it (which I don't), because bigger economy = more tax receipts.

And the deficit in and of itself isn't a bad thing. I would argue it's a marginally good thing because it tends to have a dampening effect upon government spending. Interest rates are at 30 year lows, even though the deficit is growing, which blows up the specious theory that interest rates and deficits are positively correlated. It's the overall government spending level that matters in the long run, because that's what crowds out private sector funding.

[solomon]

Interest rates are at 30 year lows, even though the deficit is growing, which blows up the specious theory that interest rates and deficits are positively correlated.

But the interest rate is a set rate, not a natural rate. I think deficits are probably bad since it just means either more taxes, or, even worse, that the government will just monetize them by printing money.

Sol

[Huxley]

Originally posted by MonkeyGirl
I say Dubya was much better off buying the board game "Risk" than trying to play President.

this statement makes me cry tears of joy

[RichmondVA]

Originally posted by DudeMan
Lowering marginal tax rates increases incentives and thereby slightly increases the long-term growth rate of the economy, which has averaged about 3% since WW2. If that natural growth rate can be goosed up a little higher, that adds up considerably over time. And it's the incremental growth in turn that makes the economy bigger that would help it to absorb the tab of this looming SS deficit.

If you think that way, then it's always a good time to lower tax rates. That's different than what I meant to say. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

My point was that I don't like the idea of the government doing anything to "goose" the economy unless it's an emergency. And I think you and I agree that this economy doesn't call for heavy-handed government intervention.

As for the smaller percentage/bigger pie argument, I'm not sure. The pie has to grow big enough to offset the smaller percentage and I haven't seen any studies that conclusively show what the margins are.

And I really have trouble believing economic growth will solve the SS deficit. If the economy grows, more people make money and more people are employed. Sure, the SS takes more money in, but it also has to pay out more money out. High earners who live a long time put quite a dent in SS.