Including SSDI?

I agree with you here, though I think your anger needs to be correctly placed.   To be sure, I don't think the Repbulican Party has gone far enough where there spending proposals are concerned.  I think they are too concerned about alienating voters to take the necesary corrective action, ie privatizing Social Security and maintaining only SSDI instead.  Having said that though, Hastings is correct...they have not been able to take those steps because they have been villified by the Democrats every time they have proposed any sort of changes whatsoever.  The "feel-good" party that promises benefits for everyone (at no extra charge!) sounds a lot better than the "bitter pill" party that orders cuts in programs that some have come to see as birthrights.

And that's where the trouble comes in.  I think you buy into the Democrat's party line a bit too heavily when you figure that taxes needed to be raised simply because of this war.  Negative.  Taxes were cut because they were a drag on an economy that was flagging at the end of Clinton's second term in office.  The cuts were employed before 9/11 changed everything (including the Administration's priority list) and were left in place after that point because the economy had taken a confidence hit after the attacks.  That would have been fine, but the cuts that were coming never materalized...they were offset by expansions in the Medicare drug program, a brand new Federal Department (Homeland Security), not to mention the war.  It would have been a far wiser (though politically suicidal) move to cutback on social programs in order to fund these things...while still leaving more money in the hands of the citizens, who could then spend it and recirculate it into the economy by way of sales tax and consumerism.

The thing that is most worrisome is just how many folks chose to vote Democrat because they believed the line that "we're only going to tax the rich."  Their new taxation plan says otherwise, and does so starkly.  I don't think anyone here considers $30,000 per year to be upper-class by any stretch, but their forced contribution to the government is being raised too. There will be a lot of disillusioned Democratic voters out there when they get their next tax bill.

tds2277 - You covered a lot of issues. I will limit myself to responding to two of them.

First - The ability to tax is the ability to destroy (a gov can tax someone into bankruptcy). The Constitution states that the government can't interfere with religion, that has, since the beginning of the Republic been interpreted as prohibiting their taxation. if you give the gov the power to tax religion you give it the power to destroy religion.

Second -  I have no idea where you got the idea that oil cos are tax exempt. Lets look at some facts that 5 minutes on the net gave me. In 2007 ExxonMoble made a profit of $40.6 billion in profit. Now, that is a lot of money, but when you compare that number to its $404 billion in revenue, it is a profit of about 10%, a nice return but not excessive.

As to the taxes paid by oil companies; in 2006 ( the last year that I could find numbers for in a five minute search),the oil companies paid taxes at a 37% rate. Which means they paid more than one-third of their profit in taxes. if you are upset at the price of oil,what do you think will happen to that price if taxes are raised? It is an economic truism that as taxes on an activity or product are raised the price of that activity or product will go up. Any increase in taxes on any product is, in reality, a tax on consumers of that product that the gov forces the industry to collect. The hidden goal is for the consumer to blame the industry for the higher price and not the politician.

Just keep in mind ,that any time a politician tells you that he is going to raise taxes on big,bad industry, he is coning you. He is in reality raising your taxes.

The other thing the "windfall profit tax" crown doesn't understand (other than stuff like the difference between revenue and profit, profit vs. profit margine) is that these "big oil" companies are public companies, the owners are shareholders. Im sure they have the visual in their mind of the "rich fat cat" lighting his Cuban cigars with $100s.

Here are some of the largest shareholders for ExxonMobil:

"California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS), F&C Management Ltd., Illinois State Board of Investment, New York City Employees Retirement System, New York State Common Retirement Fund, the California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, North Carolina and Vermont State Treasurers, labor funds such as SEIU and AFSCME"

So their desire to punish oil companies for making a profit is going to directly hurt retirement funds for teachers and working class people all over America. I'm sure many of us are investors in "big oil" via 401ks and mutual funds.


The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.
Henry Hazlitt

Posted By GilaGuy on 03/15/2008 8:27 PM

Posted By AzSandSlinger on 03/15/2008 1:41 PM

but the real world is that the retired folks who collect the biggest social program we have aren't willing to be THAT much of a conservative and get rid of it...

-Shane

I agree with you here, though I think your anger needs to be correctly placed. To be sure, I don't think the Repbulican Party has gone far enough where there spending proposals are concerned. I think they are too concerned about alienating voters to take the necesary corrective action, ie privatizing Social Security and maintaining only SSDI instead. Having said that though, Hastings is correct...they have not been able to take those steps because they have been villified by the Democrats every time they have proposed any sort of changes whatsoever. The "feel-good" party that promises benefits for everyone (at no extra charge!) sounds a lot better than the "bitter pill" party that orders cuts in programs that some have come to see as birthrights.

And that's where the trouble comes in. I think you buy into the Democrat's party line a bit too heavily when you figure that taxes needed to be raised simply because of this war. Negative. Taxes were cut because they were a drag on an economy that was flagging at the end of Clinton's second term in office. The cuts were employed before 9/11 changed everything (including the Administration's priority list) and were left in place after that point because the economy had taken a confidence hit after the attacks. That would have been fine, but the cuts that were coming never materalized...they were offset by expansions in the Medicare drug program, a brand new Federal Department (Homeland Security), not to mention the war. It would have been a far wiser (though politically suicidal) move to cutback on social programs in order to fund these things...while still leaving more money in the hands of the citizens, who could then spend it and recirculate it into the economy by way of sales tax and consumerism.

How was Bill Clinton fiscally irresponsible with "social programs" in the 90's when he was the only president out of the last four presidents to turn the deficit into a surplus.

In 1998, his budget produced a $69 billion SURPLUS. In 1999, his budget produced a $125 billion SURPLUS. In 2000, his budget produced a $236 billion SURPLUS. In 2001 his budget produced a $128 billion SURPLUS. The 2001 budget ran from fiscal year Oct 1, 2000 to Sep 30, 2001. When George junior took office in Jan 2001, the country was running smoothly on Clinton's budget. Where were all these "social programs" that the Republicans say are ruining this country?

Yeah, things did change after 9/11. Republicans added ANOTHER layer of government called Homeland Security. Why couldn't they combine the CIA, FBI, and NSA into one big agency that would share information instead of creating, yet, another layer of government?

Tax cuts are NO DIFFERENT than social programs. When a Republican hears the words "social program" they should substitue the words "economic boost" or "stimulate the economy" with them. They are both the same widget. They just have different labels attached to them depending on who (gops vs dems) created them.

BTW, the last SURPLUS produced by a president before Bill Clinton was in 1969. It was a $3 billion surplus. By looking at the numbers, Bill Clinton was more "conservative" than any Republican president for more than 30 years.

Table 1.1 Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits 1789 to 2013.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf

When Clinton supporters and their allies in the mainstream press claim that Clinton paid down the national debt, they are using the old Washington smoke and mirrors trick. The government under Clinton paid down the public portion of the debt (that is debt held by the public) by borrowing from itself (mostly from Social Security). The net effect was that the debt did not go down , there was no surplus. the Clinton administration just covered its defect by borrowing money from Social Security rather than from the public. Do not take my word for this, go to the US Treasury website. On that site you can get the national debt numbers,to the penny, for almost every day. I checked the numbers for the start of 98,99,and 2000 (see below). Again do not take my word for it, go to the site yourself. It's always better to go to the source rather than sites that will "interpret" the information for you. Note - This numbers game is not just a Clinton thing, both parties play the same numbers game, as a matter of fact the republicans, who had control of the House at the time, claimed credit for Clinton's non-existent surplus.

DATE           NATIONAL DEBT

1/5/98            $5,481,924,290,553.50

1/4/99            $5,609,529,098,608.49

1/3/00            $5,751,743,092,650.20

On another note, do you really think that there is no difference between people spending the money they earned in the way they wish, and in the government confiscating it so that government bureaucrats can make the spending decisions? You may want to check the economic history of the USSR and the communist nations of Eastern Europe for some examples of how that idea worked out.

 My grammer sucks I agree.  Thanks cactus flower and drummer for pointing that out. 

Something I need to work on so you will read me better then a 3rd grader.

Hastings1066, don't confuse federal budget (deficit or surplus) with national debt. Clinton DID have 4 years of surpluses and he DID pay down the national debt by $23 billion. I went to your treasury.gov website and found these numbers:

Date....... National Debt ...............(Increase) or Decrease
1/4/1993 4,167,872,986,583.67
1/3/1994 4,512,314,337,989.71 (344,441,351,406.04)
1/3/1995 4,798,116,945,333.39 (285,802,607,343.68)
1/2/1996 4,988,495,380,113.30 (190,378,434,779.91)
1/2/1997 5,317,016,511,039.02 (328,521,130,925.72)
1/5/1998 5,481,924,290,553.50 (164,907,779,514.48)
1/4/1999 5,606,630,290,821.39 (124,706,000,267.89)
1/3/2000 5,751,743,092,605.50 (145,112,801,784.11)
1/2/2001 5,728,739,508,558.96 23,003,584,046.54
1/2/2002 5,932,932,561,034.54 (204,193,052,475.58)
1/2/2003 6,389,356,141,156.55 (456,423,580,122.01)
1/2/2004 6,981,477,122,871.86 (592,120,981,715.31)
1/3/2005 7,591,307,997,129.40 (609,830,874,257.54)
1/3/2006 8,153,881,581,212.99 (562,573,584,083.59)
1/2/2007 8,678,229,324,205.41 (524,347,742,992.42)
1/2/2008 9,210,587,444,062.47 (532,358,119,857.06).

If you look at 1/2/2001, the national debt was reduced by $23 billion. Also, your 1/4/99 number is incorrect. It should be $5,606,630,290,821.39, not $5,609,529,098,608.49 as you posted above. Check on the treasury.gov website for yourself, don't take my word for it.

The federal budget and the national debt are two different things. Example, if you get a $10,000 bonus (surplus) from work, it doesn't automatically reduce your mortgage (national debt) by $10,000. If you spend the $10,000 bonus (surplus) on things like social programs or a $250 million bridge to nowhere, then your mortgage (national debt) does not get reduced.

Gops cannot deny that Clinton was more fiscally responsible than the last 3 gop presidents we've had. None of the gops had surpluses according to the whitehouse.gov website I listed previously. I don't believe any of the three gops reduced the national debt.

As for borrowing from Social Security, debt is debt. It doesn't matter if it's Intergovernmental Debt or Public Debt. It still shows up as a liability on the balance sheet. No smoke and mirrors, dude. No brainwashing. Just check the numbers out for yourself.

At least the current gop in charge is consistent while he adds half a TRILLION dollars to the national debt each year. You might call him a borrow-and-spend gop.

In my mind, there's no difference between a borrow-and-spend gop touting conservatism and a global warming lib who has the highest electric bill on the block. They're both hypocrites.

Go to treasurydirect.gov/NP/NpGateway. You will see the information used in the following chart . Rather than picking single days , look at the numbers at the end of each fiscal year in which Clinton was President. !993 is included as a starting point , so the deficit is not included as it was not his responsibility. We can debate day to day numbers, but it is all summed up in the Fiscal Year numbers. 

FISCAL YEAR   YEAR ENDING      NATL DEBT                  DEFICIT                      

       93                   9/30/93                 4.411488 Trillion       

       94                   9/3094                 4.692749 Trillion        281.26 Billion

      95                   9/30/95                4.973982 Trillion         281.23 Billion

     96                    9/30/96               5.224810 Trillion         250.83 Billion

     97                    9/30/97               5.413146 Trillion          !88.34 Billion

     98                    9/30/98               5.526193 Trillion           113.05 Billion

    99                      9/30/99              5.656270 Trillion            130.08 Billion

    00                      9/30/00              5.674178 Trillion             17,91  Billion

    01                     9/30/01               5.807463 Trillion              133.29 Billion

The Republicans are just as bad, if not worst. Both parties play with smoke and mirrors by using confusing numbers and cherry picking dates, but the Fiscal Year numbers are unspinable. Both parties are addicted to spending money that we do not have. A French writer and politician who visited the US in the 1800s said that our Republic would last until the Congress discovered that it could bribe the public with the public's money. Congress and the Presidents of both parties have have made that discovery.