pwn3d LOL No I think they are talking for a couple of fiscal years and not the big picture.
And before you guys start going, well look at how much the U.S. is in debt compared to Canada I am aware of how small the Canadian debt is compared to the U.S. debt, I was just pointing the fact out to you guys that you are in debt also and do not have a surplust as you were boasting about.
Rolin:
First, get your facts straight.
Debt != Deficeit.
Your country is spending about 1 trillion more than it takes in in GDP let alone Revenues by taxation. Basically, you've said Canada has debt. And you're correct, however, Canada, being one tenth the population of the US has less than one tenth the US's debts (if you checked, it's on the order of about $385 Billion USD) and we're taking in more than 11 billion dollars more per year than our interest payments, including inflationary adjustments.
So, you're right in that we don't have a surplus (ie, the debt is not paid off), but at least we're not digging ourselves any deeper (ie. spending on superfluous programs and directorates, as well as tax cuts that aren't really helping the people that need it most, meaning the middle class, don't start the Upper Class paying more overall... it's bull, its been proven).
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Rollin 24 wrote:And before you guys start going, well look at how much the U.S. is in debt compared to Canada I am aware of how small the Canadian debt is compared to the U.S. debt, I was just pointing the fact out to you guys that you are in debt also and do not have a surplust as you were boasting about.
I refer you to my last comment ^ Im not going to argue about the U.S. has more debt than canada because it does by far, I know that. I was pointing out the fact that canada does not have a surplus. Are you trying to tell me that the upper class is paying most of the taxes?
I meant to say "Are you trying to tell me that the upper class ISNT paying most of the taxes?"
Canada has a Surplus, in the context that the CDN government are not spending more than what they are receiving in Taxation revenues. Therefore, much of the extra that is accrued every year is used to go to social programmes, military (finally), and Debt relief. The US Government on the other hand, continues to spend significantly more than it earns with all accounted income sources per annum. As well, since the US is not covering the interest payments on the money that is owed, the government is currently pushing itself into a deficeit position, basically accruing interest on the interest that they are not paying. If you want a simplified idea, use your credit card to pay the credit card's interest. You'll hit your limit at about the time that the Credit company sends you a bill to pay up.
And, Yes... The upper class pay more <i>per capita</i>, no question.
They also pale in comparison to what the middle class pays on the whole. Think: less than 2% of the population (or about 6 Million people), cannot pay one the whole more than over 75% of the population. Also realise that most of the people that are rich have maneuvered their money into either (dreadfully undertaxed) corporations to which they have controlling interest, or into offshore investments while timing was opportune. No person that is independantly wealthy is going to stay that way by keeping their money in their own personal bank accounts.
Think of Donald Trump or better yet, Bill Gates. Both have massive fortunes (at least on paper) and they have both have their fates tied up in their various companys. If Microsoft toppled over, or if Trump Investments suddenly hit the skids, both of those men would be mostly ruined... because, even though they command multiple million dollar salaries in direct payments, they stand to loose far more if the stock that they hold in their companies takes a dive. Sure, they pay Capital Gains, but if you think that they only personally own stock in their Companies, you should also know that they own several underwriting and holding companies whose only purpose is to assume the brunt of the damage in event their main stocks tank. The Companies are taxed by the corporate tax laws, not the personal tax laws.... Corporations have a tax holiday usually well before Easter every year (some even have the year off before February) , while the rest of the population is into late April or May before they're working for themselves. . By insulating themselves that way, they still keep their networth, but they pay significantly less taxes.
Why pay the taxes of the regular guy? They have money enopugh to spend so they can keep the lion's share a lot longer.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Ok....The U.S. is fine with our spending and know how to deal with the amount of money that we owe. Our Economy is has been gaining momentum and continues to gain momentum. Our debt always increases during wartime, obviously, and once it cools down we always bounce back. But its ok, you have your difference of opinion and I have my difference of opinion. Im not an economics buff but I'm just going by the past U.S. history which tells us that our economy will bounce back so Im not really all that concerned. Well just let history decide
I hope your optimism is warranted, because, the US has always fallen back on a manufacturing and other non-skilled means of generating revenue, as well as exportation, the problem that I'm noticing is that a lot of those manufacturing jobs that pay decently are going over seas (to India, Malaysia or Korea) or south (to Mexico) where labor practises and pay are at a significantly lower standard.
I hope that at somepoint there is something to fill that vacuum of jobs (the non adjusted farm reports look rosey, but the numbers seem jiggered because minimum wage jobs are clocking in under manufacturing jobs, when they're clearly service jobs (McDonalds cooks, for example are considered manufacturing)). Otherwise, Black Tuesday will seem like a toothach compared to what you'll have. I have a lot of problems with Bush's economic policies, at least someone mentioned social security's problems to him last year. But then again I think Alan Greenspan had it better when he pointed out a few things to Clinton, and the budget was more or less balanced.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Rollin 24 wrote:Clinton NEVER had a surplus. It was a predicted surplus for the future. The U.S. has ALWAYS been in debt. I cant say much about Canadas surplus you guys are talking about because I dont follow that stuff but Im sure if Canada had to maintain there own military capable of defending its country instead of relying on the U.S. to defend it your surplus wouldn't be quite so high.
Then why did Bush send most taxpayers an 'Early Refund Check' back around 2000-2001? That's because for once the gov't took in more money than it spent which in dictionaries is defined as a surplus. That surplus should've gone to paying a little off of our deficit instead of back in the taxpayers pocket.
You didn't have defeceit spending until early 2002.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
OK we have some kiddies here, so I'll explain some things.
Debt - Money owed. The national statistic not only includes Federally owed debt but privately held debt as well.
Deficit - Spending more than you take in, which pushes you further into debt.
Surplus - Spending less than you take in, you have some left over. However, we still owe money(debt), so if we still had a surplus(which will never happen under this administration), we could pay off our debt.
Now towards the end of the Clinton era, lawmakers where arguing(big surprise) about what to do with the surplus. Republicans where wanting to give tax breaks(obviously to win favor with voters), which of course reduces income and makes climbing out of debt impossible. Meanwhile, Democrats wanted to use the surplus to pay off the Federal debt owed. That is obviously the more fiscally responsible thing to do.
What many people don't realize that not only do we owe money, but we have to pay interest on money owed, which means that even the budget was perfectly balanced(spending and earning the same) and so earning no new debt and yet paying off no debt, the debt will still grow exponentially. If you want to know what I mean, stop paying off your credit cards etc entirely and see what happens(not pretty at all). The obviously smarter thing to do would be pay what we owe, THEN once that is payed off, give tax-breaks. I used to have people tell me how the republican party is more financially responsible than those wasteful democrats, but I've heard no-one making that argument in a long time, wonder why?
Now what else is alarming about this is that a very significant portion of this money is owed outside of the USA. What that means is that money, and lots of it, is leaving the US by virtue of the interest of the debt incurred. Even worse than that is the fact that we also have a MASSIVE trade deficit (we're buying a lot more of other counties' crap than we're selling them). And the crown jewel is Bush's policy of encouraging "outsourcing" aka DEPORTING jobs, from America, to other countries. Bush argues that this is good for the economy. It is good for the economy, but
who's economy?(hint, it's
NOT OURS) I can't believe even the biggest Bush fan boys buy this @!#$. But they do,
because Bush can do no wrong. The argument - Well it DOES help a lot of companies(well just giant corporations - aka Bush's best friends), and I can't argue with the fact that this benefits corporations - who can pay someone in another country much less than they would have had to pay the American worker doing the same job. And of course what's good for the company should be good for the employees. Oh wait, I forgot that the employees live in another country, damm it. Oh well, close enough. At least it helps the rich get richer, and isn't that what life's all about? As for the American workers who loses their high paying job to oversees workers, oh well, they can always get lower paying jobs to keep the unemployment rate down. Same thing, right?
I don't know why I bother. I know this will go straight in one ear and out the other. Despite the fact I'm an independent, this will most likely all be dismissed as "baseless Liberal propaganda." Hell, anything not kissing Bush's ass now a days is "baseless Liberal propaganda." I should just give up and admit that Bush is in fact the sequel to Jesus, and as such can do no wrong(
). Bush's will = God's will(
).
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
BastardKing, do you think the American economy would have turned around WITHOUT the tax cuts?
Also, we will always have debt. There is the National Debt. Deficit and Surplus is what we have in a fiscal year. If all things go according to plan, you will have a balanced budget. When you don't you either have a deficit or surplus. Either way, we have been F'd. At least Bush gave me my money back. Gore would have found some way to spend it. I put that money back into the economy and many other americans did too. The economy, despite 9/11, has been very good when Bush has been in office. It wasn't all due to him though.
And you might want to look up who signed NAFTA.
While you're thanking him for your tax break, I'd like to thank him for doubling the price of gas everytime I've gone to the pump in the past 4 years. There goes my tax break.
bliZsham wrote:While you're thanking him for your tax break, I'd like to thank him for doubling the price of gas everytime I've gone to the pump in the past 4 years. There goes my tax break.
Since when does the President control OPEC? Do you have any idea how much consumption in China has gone up in the last 4 years?
mrgto wrote:BastardKing, do you think the American economy would have turned around WITHOUT the tax cuts?
I can't speak for the Bastard, but I'd hazard a Guess at no worse off.
Interesting thing is that the deeper you get into debt by not covering the interest (ie. defecit spending) due on current loans make you a worse credit risk.. The US gov't is no better. I don't think so many people would have a problem if they actually held a decent job (ask a Tech Worker what they think of that last phrase, and be sure to duck fast).
Quote:
Also, we will always have debt. There is the National Debt.
The point that is being made is that while you may choose to have debt, you don't HAVE to have defecit spending.
Here's a wakey wakey, The amount of money the US borrowed to finance their involvement in WWII was on the order of 26 Billion (in 1940-1945 dollars). It was also paid off before 1960. You know those years in the 50's that everyone thinks was so swell? Well it sucked... But Ike Eisenhower actually listened to the Federal Reserve Chair, and you had the set up for the 60's in which Kennedy had the opportunity to offer massive tax cuts, without severely sending the US Govt into a debt position, forget about deficit.
Quote:
Deficit and Surplus is what we have in a fiscal year. If all things go according to plan, you will have a balanced budget. When you don't you either have a deficit or surplus.
I'm mailling you a Capt. Obvious button Mrgto... I mean it. Shoot me an email with your address... I have it sitting on my desk right here.
Quote:
Either way, we have been F'd. At least Bush gave me my money back. Gore would have found some way to spend it.
You've been F'd? SAY IT AIN'T SO PETE!!!! The only thing you have to realise is whose been doing the "servicing" of your account, and how many times you've elected them.
Okay, without speculating, Gore would have spent it, yes, definitely, on keeping the stupid budget balanced... Why? Gore had already stated he'd have kept Clinton's budgetary policies in place.
.
Quote:
I put that money back into the economy and many other americans did too. The economy, despite 9/11, has been very good when Bush has been in office. It wasn't all due to him though.
Well, whether or not it was better, is highly debatable.. when the average American is paying about $2 per gallon of gasoline, it's good.. if you've got money in Imperial Oil, Gulf Coast Oil or Sunoco.
Either way... This level of spending is no where NEAR sustainable. Not covering one's debts and interest on said debts usually gets your credit revoked fast. The World Bank, and all stakeholders in the US nat'l debt oughtta try weighing in... put the kind of pressure that the US put on Russia in the mid 90's. Think that might get someone to pay up?
Quote:
And you might want to look up who signed NAFTA.
Brian Mulroney and George HW Bush... I think it's more telling that after the signing of the agreement Bush's approval rating plummeted, only to be propped up by the Gulf war, and then he was voted out of office. Mulroney had already been re-elected, and stepped down in mid 1991... I won't speculate who was the better politic.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Clinton signed NAFTA.
Keep the Obvious button. You need it more than me.
Quote:
BastardKing, do you think the American economy would have turned around WITHOUT the tax cuts?
Yes, sort of. But I'm not so sure of just how far this economy has "turned around". None the less I don't think the tax cut had that much to do with it.
1. The tax break isn't really enough to net a substantial increase in spendable income, since the low/average income person didn't get that much of it. - the people who got most of it are the people who spend the lowest percentage of their income. And of course that really minimizes the economic impact.
2. The amount of money people have to spend is NOT the only contributing factor to economic prosperity, not by a long shot. Consumer confidence for example, is one(not the only) factor which influences people's willingness to spend the money they do have. Investor confidence is pretty important to companies, and besides influencing stock prices and such, will affect the level of risk companies are willing to take, influencing innovation(new or improved products etc), hiring practices, organic growth planning, etc. Well there's a lot more than my way-over-simplified explanation of this. I highly recommend that you(or anyone) take some economics classes. Good stuff to know.
3. This economy is NOT the equivalent economy of when GWB took office. Companies(and the 1%ers) are making plenty of money,
do not confuse that with us having a good economy, because the average working person is not doing as well as the companies(or the 1%ers). In this case you must forget the unemployment rate. We are making less money in as measured in dollars than we used to. You can't honestly tell me that a person who loses a $15/hour job, but who later gets a $8/hour job(which would not affect the unemployment rate), is just as well off, can you?! But there's more than that. Even if we where making just as much - as measured in dollars - we're still
de facto(in reality) making less. Why? Because of wild inflation in pretty much everything. Gas is only a small part of a much larger problem, sort of like salting the wound. The dollar is shrinking, and fast. It's value is falling at an alarming rate.
I never said liked NAFTA - George H. Bush should have never drawn it up, Bill Clinton should have never signed it, but George W. Bush wasn't even content to stop with NAFTA. He just HAD to take it further. If you don't like NAFTA, you sure as hell should never have trusted your future to GWB.
Voting for him once is a mistake, but seeing that he betrays nearly everything Republicans traditionally have stood for(think long and hard about this and what he has done, you will see I'm right - I'm not the only one - I know many republicans who feel this way, but are too scared of the "liberals" to vote against him), and still voting for him again(as I speculate you did), that's tragically foolish. While, sometimes you seem to have a brain inside of your skull, sadly your nothing more that a Republican fan-boy, what a shame. Putting potential to waste - instead embracing narrow-mindedness. I know that there are a lot of people who (and I suspect you're one of them), that if Bush was basically the same as he is now, having done basically the same things, but if his ticket read "democrat" - would not vote for him(I even suspect you'd slam many of the same things I do about him). And I'm NOT a "Liberal Commie Pinko Bastard"etc.(just the bastard part
) I'm independent. It's a lot easier to see the light when your not wearing the 10" thick lead-coated sunglasses of party politics.
Look into it.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Bastardking3000 wrote:Quote:
BastardKing, do you think the American economy would have turned around WITHOUT the tax cuts?
Yes, sort of. But I'm not so sure of just how far this economy has "turned around". None the less I don't think the tax cut had that much to do with it.
1. The tax break isn't really enough to net a substantial increase in spendable income, since the low/average income person didn't get that much of it. - the people who got most of it are the people who spend the lowest percentage of their income. And of course that really minimizes the economic impact.
"if its not enough to make any impact on the econemy its generally not enough to make any impact on the debt."
2. The amount of money people have to spend is NOT the only contributing factor to economic prosperity, not by a long shot. Consumer confidence for example, is one(not the only) factor which influences people's willingness to spend the money they do have. Investor confidence is pretty important to companies, and besides influencing stock prices and such, will affect the level of risk companies are willing to take, influencing innovation(new or improved products etc), hiring practices, organic growth planning, etc. Well there's a lot more than my way-over-simplified explanation of this. I highly recommend that you(or anyone) take some economics classes. Good stuff to know.
"consumer confidence, are these the same consumers that someone got the impression that the econemy could only go up? fact is the bubble busted, just like it has done in the past, and will do again in the future, the other fact is how the media and everyone else seemed to act like the sky was falling and that we were going into a major depression and it was all bush's fault even though everyone seemed to fail the fact that we were in an economic downslide before bush was even sworn in."
3. This economy is NOT the equivalent economy of when GWB took office. Companies(and the 1%ers) are making plenty of money, do not confuse that with us having a good economy, because the average working person is not doing as well as the companies(or the 1%ers). In this case you must forget the unemployment rate. We are making less money in as measured in dollars than we used to. You can't honestly tell me that a person who loses a $15/hour job, but who later gets a $8/hour job(which would not affect the unemployment rate), is just as well off, can you?! But there's more than that. Even if we where making just as much - as measured in dollars - we're still de facto(in reality) making less. Why? Because of wild inflation in pretty much everything. Gas is only a small part of a much larger problem, sort of like salting the wound. The dollar is shrinking, and fast. It's value is falling at an alarming rate.
"if the price of gas rose on the same level of the price of everything else. we'd be paying around 4$ a gallon" i do agree with most of what your saying, but we were in a recesion, not a horrible one by any means, but one made out to be allot worse then what it really was, scaring allot of industry into protection mode.
I never said liked NAFTA - George H. Bush should have never drawn it up, Bill Clinton should have never signed it, but George W. Bush wasn't even content to stop with NAFTA. He just HAD to take it further. If you don't like NAFTA, you sure as hell should never have trusted your future to GWB.
Voting for him once is a mistake, but seeing that he betrays nearly everything Republicans traditionally have stood for(think long and hard about this and what he has done, you will see I'm right - I'm not the only one - I know many republicans who feel this way, but are too scared of the "liberals" to vote against him), and still voting for him again(as I speculate you did), that's tragically foolish. While, sometimes you seem to have a brain inside of your skull, sadly your nothing more that a Republican fan-boy, what a shame. Putting potential to waste - instead embracing narrow-mindedness. I know that there are a lot of people who (and I suspect you're one of them), that if Bush was basically the same as he is now, having done basically the same things, but if his ticket read "democrat" - would not vote for him(I even suspect you'd slam many of the same things I do about him). And I'm NOT a "Liberal Commie Pinko Bastard"etc.(just the bastard part) I'm independent. It's a lot easier to see the light when your not wearing the 10" thick lead-coated sunglasses of party politics. Look into it.
" and this last paragraph has allot to do with why goverment and the country is so far divided on allot of things. instead of talking rationally and working together, everyone likes to just pick their own side and basically ridicule and slam the other side. the rest of your post was pretty well thought out and written, but this last part of the paragraph is going to just piss the person off and shut themselves off to what you have to say. you automatically assuming that the way he voted party motivated, wich basically makes it look like you vote the same way, again hurting your chances of an actual open discussion. youlle also notice that your slamming on him was the longest written portion of your responce.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
^^^^
I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying, I perhaps shouldn't be slamming him. I was however pointing out the fact that there are people who don't even consider fault in their candidate purely based on party affiliation(because he's one of "us", he can do no wrong). If these same people would only forget the party affiliation of these candidates, as well as their own devout affiliations, they probably wouldn't look so favorably on some of the "their" candidates. I have know far too many of these people, and from everything I have ever seen mrgto write(he's been here for quite a long time and used to be quite vocal on many issues), I have seen nothing to break him out of this mold, still it may be unfair of me to simply assume he belongs to this group and that my comments should be directed partially at him. Mrgto, I apologize.
By the way I also know some usually very straight ticket Republican guys who only make one exception - Bush. These guys couldn't stomach Kerry either, and so all but one of them REFUSED to vote to avoid having to vote for either one.
Quote:
wich basically makes it look like you vote the same way
Well I don't know about that, since I stated I'm an independent. Sometimes I vote for a Democrat, and sometimes I vote for a Republican. It all depends on who I think is the better man/woman for the job, party line not being a qualification or merit(even if they where Independent, it doesn't mean I would like them or what they stand for - they could have the complete opposite views as me on every issue and still be just as Independent as I am.). One example of a prominent Republican I voted for in this last election was Congressman Ray Lahood. I was lucky enough to have personally met with him while he was attending a dinner in Peoria, IL(he was sitting right across from me) a couple years ago. I spoke with him for a while, and given the content of our conversation, despite not agreeing on everything, I feel he an excellent candidate to help lead our nation(I didn't particularly dislike him before). I feel people like him in office are good for the future of this nation. And people like Bush IMO- are VERY BAD for the future of this nation. You see they are from the same party, but they are not comparable.
Quote:
It's a lot easier to see the light when your not wearing the 10" thick lead-coated sunglasses of party politics.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
i bet allot of peoples opinons would be changed if they actually sat down and talked person to person with candidates. but the sad part is the closest you can normall get to allot of them is thru, their advisors, or their man handlers who will spout off the man slogan slap a button on u and send you on your way. i'm for the most part a repulican, and people on here tag me as a repulican but i as well have voted for democrats in the past when i felt they were the better candidate.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
