BakerStreet

Bush has taken the national debt from 5.7 Trillion to 8.7 Trillion and well on its way to 10 Trillion. The debt for 2006 is 450 Billion not subtracting the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. That means we spent 1/2 Trillion more then we taxed. The AP report I posted said that 2007 is expected to show a HIGHER deficit then the $450 Billion in 2006. The interest on the debt was $406 Billion last year heading to $500 Billion per year. How in the Hell can anyone call that kind of fiscal policy sane? When Bush leaves office we will have 4 Trillion more on the National debt and be Hundreds of billions out of balance. Every year the tax cuts to the wealthy increase adding to the budget problems. What happened to a BALANCED BUDGET?

Why do you keep changing the subject?

You say that everything was peachy back when we were taxing the wealthy, then you post material that cites the "recession of 2001". You claim the wealth of the rich doesn't benefit anyone but themselves, but ignore arguments to the contrary. You whine, whine, whine about "Bush's" deficit, when you know full well that the majority of the spending comes from a corrupt congress.

Well, congratulations, you've invited even bigger spenders in. Now you claim you only want to tax the rich to pay for it. None of your arguments add up. We have a lot more debt, a lot more expenditures, but somehow we're only going to tax as much as Clinton did.

You're perspective is dishonest, and it represents dishonest people. You are the shill of people who sell off our government to lobbyists and stuff their freezer with cash. They steal, and you demand we send them more. Tell you what, you want to pay for it, YOU send more.

Stop trying to draft other people's money for your war.

As I've challenged before, did YOU refuse to accept the rebate from the tax cuts? Do YOU refuse to collect your pension or any other benefits in order to do your part?

Until YOU are willing to give up your part of the federal pie, you can shut your hypocritical piehole!!!

Bakerstreet

At the end of the Clinton Administration, the national debt was 5.7Trillion and we had a balanced annual budget. Bush turned the 5.7 Trillion to 8.7 Trillion debt and turned a BALANCED annual budget to a DEFICIT of almost 1/2 Trillion per year.

We need to choose what we want to spend, which is some areas may be more (i.e. border security) and then have a tax structure that EQUALS the amount we have agreed to SPEND! What Bush and the GOP have done is SPEND with NO REGUARD as to WHERE the added money is to come from to pay for the increased spending.

Bakerstreet

The vast majority of the 2001 Bush Tax Cuts went to the middle income taxpayer who spent the added money and thus helped the economy. I want to make those tax cuts permanent to help BOTH the economy and the people WHO NEED the help.
The tax cuts that were phased in starting in 2002 went to the wealthy. Those do not have the same impact on spending and we simply can not afford the lost revenue given our increased spending!

The problem is, Col, you aren't in charge. I'm not sure things would be so bad if you were. The people who are in charge aren't republicans or democrats, they are politicians, liars, cheats, thieves. They won't be satisfied with the top 1% or even the top 20%.

"The tax cuts that were phased in starting in 2002 went to the wealthy. Those do not have the same impact on spending and we simply can not afford the lost revenue given our increased spending!"

Again, you persist with the idea that the rich sleep in mattresses stuffed with cash. Every spare dollar "held" by the wealthy is either in the bank, invested, spent in the economy, going to local economies in the form of property tax, etc. Given the choice, I believe money better serves the economy when it is IN the economy, not trapped in your socialist mess.

Bakerstreet

I understand that the wealthier a person is the less of each added dollar they get will be spent. That is called the Marginal Propensity to Consume in economic terms. Thus tax cuts to the lower income groups will result in a MUCH higher % of that added money to be returned to the economy as increased spending which creates demand and which is responsible for about 70% of economic growth per economists. When wealthy people receive added money from things like a tax cut they will invest it in either existing business or create new business which does help the economy but not to the same extend as increased and sustained DEMAND. You are telling me about the old supply side theory which Reagan used in 1981 and was to balance the federal budget because by the sustained economic growth that his tax cuts were to create. We did see SOME growth from his tax cuts and we did from the Bush tax cuts but not enough to balance the budget. Reagan added $3 Trillion to the debt in 8 years and Bush has added $3 Trillion to the debt in only 6 years using the very same economic plan-- Voodoo economics according to Bush 41.

You NEVER answer the question, if we agree to spend X in any given year we must have taxes equal to X.

You NEVER acknowledge that in the past WARS have been paid for by increased taxes not by lowering taxes putting the cost of the war into the National debt.

You NEVER acknowledge that the increased debt is driving UP the annual interest taxpayers must pay and that increased interest will NEVER end until we stop adding to the debt and REPAY what we have amassed to date.

"Thus tax cuts to the lower income groups will result in a MUCH higher % of that added money to be returned to the economy as increased spending which creates demand and which is responsible for about 70% of economic growth per economists."

Nope. Most of that money will be spent at low-end retail, on products normally not made in the US. It shoots out of their community like prunes through a goose and ends up either back in the government pocket through corporate taxes, or right back into the same business to sell the same stuff to the same person.

That's better than just giving it to the government, sure, but it isn't creating new wealth other than the fraction of a percent profit the cut-rate retailer makes on each purchase. This has created a lot of jobs as they build new wal-marts, but the problems inherent to the system also rear their heads.

"When wealthy people receive added money from things like a tax cut they will invest it in either existing business or create new business which does help the economy but not to the same extend as increased and sustained DEMAND."

Again, wrong. You yourself have a problem with our money going overseas, but you'd rather poor people spend their money on Chinese goods at Wal Mart than wealthy people investing in American businesses? Or buying expensive property that generates tax revenue here?

This populist thing doesn't ring true, col. You're talking in circles again. In the end you are just trying to excuse punishing us for the government spending more than it can afford. You're an advocate for thieves.

"You NEVER acknowledge that the increased debt is driving UP the annual interest taxpayers must pay and that increased interest will NEVER end until we stop adding to the debt and REPAY what we have amassed to date."

I acknowledge it almost every time. I think about 1/3 to 1/2 of the federal budget should simply disappear. Let the states deal with it where people can get at their representatives.

You never acknowledge the fact that you promote putting the people into federal office that are the most notorious over spenders and over taxers historically. You cry about deficits and then tell us to vote for people who stuff their freezer full of money. Come on.

Bakerstreet

You have not looked at what makes up the federal budget. Most of the budget can not be cut as you suggest. Things LIKE the $406 Billion we pay in interest on the national debt that Reagan and Bush 43 gave us. National Defense, Homeland Security, health expense, Veterans cost (which will be going up due to the Iraq war) and pensions make up the vast majority of the budget. These can not be cut for they are OBLIGATIONS we as a country have taken on. You are also wrong about the economic impact on low income tax cuts. These people spend most of their money on Housing, health care, insurance and food which are still produced in America. Clothing is most likely the one item most low and middle income Americans buy in quantity that are today produced in China because of our trade policies.

When we have balanced the Federal Budget and paid down the debt I will be happy to support tax cuts to the wealthy if we have a SURPLUS.