Welcome to Gaia! ::


Hopefully this is not a repeat thread, and yes i know i do not yet fully pay taxes with the exception of my petty pay checks biggrin ....

Why is it that the American government while at war*a war that needs LOTS of funding at that* gives tax cuts to its people in reply for the increased demand on the economy for money for Iraq? Generally any person with common sense would state that taxes should be raised in a time of war. With new news storys coming out constantly about the poor state of affairs in Iraq and troops being under funded why does our government grant tax cuts? I would gladly give up more of my pay check to save the lifes of my brothers and sisters!
Yes it is rather amusing the idea of war on the cheap. I feel much the same, and quite frankly Americans pay nothing compared to other countries anyway so yeah.
Well, some of us think there's reason to suspect the market fundamentalists in power to want to run up a deficit; it's the only way they'll be able to kill social programs such as welfare and social security without raising a massive outcry against them.
Well, the ideas for and promises of the tax cuts originate from before the war began. So the unforeseen war complicates the matter. According to the liberal Keynsian economic thoery, Bush did things almost perfectly. The only ways that he could have done things better was to give out more in tax credits so that people would spend the money on major applicances, vehicles, and other "heavy" industry products instead of paying off debt, which most people did with the tax refunds.

As far as the war as an expenditure goes, it is a temporary expense, and so is the tax cuts. Taxes look to go up again and expenses look to go down, but the ideal economic models had the Democrats retaking either the House or Senate to help keep pork spending to a minimium. But, apparently they messed that up. The real problem isn't the war expenses, or the relatively minor Bush tax cuts, it is the consistant over use of porkbarrel expendatures. We do have enough tax income (even now) to cover the national social programs as well as the war, but not if we still have to deal with some three-hundred multi-million dollar pet projects.
we do not have a large national debt at all when compared to our GDP, righ now it isn't even close to a problem, especially if it doesn't keep getting added to, and if our gdp keeps going up.

We can afford a pretty good amount of deficit spending. Trust me, if we had higer taxes I highly doubt it would translate for more stuff over in iraq.
amen on the real problem being pork barrel spending.

It sickend me how happy patty murray was to tell our state how much great stuff she got us in the bill that went through last month. Especially how much of it was unnecessarry.
mohawkpax
we do not have a large national debt at all when compared to our GDP, righ now it isn't even close to a problem, especially if it doesn't keep getting added to, and if our gdp keeps going up.
If we divide the debt evenly among each american, it's $25,000 dollars.

If we factor in interest, the debt is now a birth tax of $100,000 that each newborn will owe when they're 18.


How is this not large, given that any attempt at a solution based on ability to pay is blocked for "punishing people for being rich"?
Sotek
mohawkpax
we do not have a large national debt at all when compared to our GDP, righ now it isn't even close to a problem, especially if it doesn't keep getting added to, and if our gdp keeps going up.
If we divide the debt evenly among each american, it's $25,000 dollars.

If we factor in interest, the debt is now a birth tax of $100,000 that each newborn will owe when they're 18.


How is this not large, given that any attempt at a solution based on ability to pay is blocked for "punishing people for being rich"?


you really ignored the point of my post which was explaining the answer to the very question you are asking.

our nation produces about $40,000 a year for every american if your number is correct... that $25000 is a one time shot.
People don't have problems with total debts that are less than their anual income.
why should the country as a whole?
A soporific, that economic theory may be liberal in origin, but it's the neo-liberal ideology who today wants to spend more and tax less. I've seen the right advocate it far more then the left, basing this on my country and yours.

Kerry, Clinton were the ones who were advocating balancing the budget, while Bush is the spender, and in Canada here, we've had a surplus ever since the liberals were in power. It is, however, Stephen Harper who's numbers didn't add up when he campaigned for the prime minister seat. It's also him who advocated, what was it? Economical Autonomy, or what not. I don't remember the buzzword. Anyway, he was the one who wanted to drop taxes.

I don't have any problems with dropping taxes if we don't go in spending, but at least with the liberals in power, I *know* we'll stay in surplus.
Featauril
I don't have any problems with dropping taxes if we don't go in spending, but at least with the liberals in power, I *know* we'll stay in surplus.


The only reason Canada is in surplus is because THEY didn't get a terrorist attack in 2001, and THEY didn't have to deal with the stock market bubble bursting in early 2001. Also, Canada wouldn't get involoved with NATO in Afganistan and Iraq.
Prettz3003
Featauril
I don't have any problems with dropping taxes if we don't go in spending, but at least with the liberals in power, I *know* we'll stay in surplus.


The only reason Canada is in surplus is because THEY didn't get a terrorist attack in 2001, and THEY didn't have to deal with the stock market bubble bursting in early 2001. Also, Canada wouldn't get involoved with NATO in Afganistan and Iraq.


BULLSHIT! We WERE in Afganistan! One of your stupid pilots killed 3 of our soldiers who were training at night!

We also accepted your planes, accepted their passengers inside our homes AND didn't even get thanked for it, after 9/11.

Our economy is so closely related to yours that everytime you take a dive, so do we. The reason we have a surplus is because we tax the money we spend!
Featauril
A soporific, that economic theory may be liberal in origin, but it's the neo-liberal ideology who today wants to spend more and tax less. I've seen the right advocate it far more then the left, basing this on my country and yours.

Kerry, Clinton were the ones who were advocating balancing the budget, while Bush is the spender, and in Canada here, we've had a surplus ever since the liberals were in power. It is, however, Stephen Harper who's numbers didn't add up when he campaigned for the prime minister seat. It's also him who advocated, what was it? Economical Autonomy, or what not. I don't remember the buzzword. Anyway, he was the one who wanted to drop taxes.

I don't have any problems with dropping taxes if we don't go in spending, but at least with the liberals in power, I *know* we'll stay in surplus.


Clinton had little to do with the balancing of the Budget in his terms, what really preciptiated that was the fact that he didn't increase spending faster than the Economy was growing (at the highest point of the market cycle) and there was a change in ownership of Congress, thereby eliminating a large proportion of the the pork that comes out of Congress... forty years worth. Bush hasn't had nearly as good of a situation, he has to deal with an economy at the low end of a market cycle, with demands on the treasury that didn't exist when he first suggested the tax cuts.

In any event, Democrats were the ones who created the national debt in the first place, I don't trust them with my money any more than I can throw them... and I just failed Judo.
Democrats started the national debt? Do, please, provide a source for this.
Prettz3003

The only reason Canada is in surplus is because THEY didn't get a terrorist attack in 2001, and THEY didn't have to deal with the stock market bubble bursting in early 2001. Also, Canada wouldn't get involoved with NATO in Afganistan and Iraq.


They didn't put the World in the World Trade Center for nothing. In actuality the whole international economy was damaged after 9/11.

Chris Isidore

The worst terrorist attack in U.S. history killed thousands, destroyed the World Trade Center in New York, damaged the Pentagon and shook financial markets and businesses around the world. And the shock waves continued overnight as Asian markets dropped dramatically while the human cost and economic damage were still being assessed.


Attacks shake U.S., world
A Soporific

In any event, Democrats were the ones who created the national debt in the first place


Oh good lord, this was the funniest statement that I have heard all day. If you would have researched your history, the US National Debt Officially began when this country was first formed. (Back then the two party system didn't exist yet.) The national debt wasn't officially reported until 1790 by our Secretary of State, Alexander Hamilton. The debt at that time was close to $70 million.

Overview Of National Debt

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum