News-Record.com

I have never understood the economic soundness or plain old common sense of reducing taxes while increasing astronomical spending. I would soon loose everything I had if I took in less and spent more. This is the exact same principle of economics as the federal government reducing income (taxes) while increasing the outflow of income.

This is not rocket science. So why do folks think Bush's tax reduction is good sound judgement? I guess it's the buy now-pay later mentality of the sheep in America. Or maybe those who hail the tax cut as wonderful don't count themselves as being one of a whole. For we, as a whole, are going to have to ante up when the bill comes due.

Bush has, once again, tricked the American public into thinking he is the savior of the US. He knew full well one cannot give back 15 dollars out of 100 dollars, then spend 300 dollars and expect the books to balance at the end of the day. He has manipulated some into thinking THEY will not have to pay that 200 dollar deficit.

Or maybe they just don't care that their children and grandchildren are going to have to try to pay off the debt we are acquiring daily. Sure, some may be getting a few more dollars/week in their paycheck now. But anyone with any thought process at all knows, in their hearts and minds, that in the not so distant future we are going to have a day of reckoning economically. And that they will end up paying twice what they are "saving" now.

"Of course, when you have a single-minded purpose of tearing down the president, why allow logic and rational thought to enter the mix?" Do tell me, Fred, when one has the single-minded purpose of defending the indefensible, why allow logic and rational thought to enter the mix? For you certainly have abandoned both.

Click on this graph:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/12/growth_in_feder.html

Yvonne, I'm actually for tax cuts accompanied with spending decreases.

Alas, I'm sitting here in my PA hotel room looking at the front page of USA Today. Headline: "Growth in Federal Spending Unchecked".

A few highlights: The Fed govt. is currently spending 20.8 cents of every dollar the economy generates, up from 18.5 cents in 2001.

"The House is scheduled to debate the $2.8 trillion budget for '07, which projects an additional $3 trillion in debt in the next five years. "

For you bleeding hearts who think think Repbulicans starve children: "Spending on social programs, from education to veterans healthcare, has risen faster than at any time since the 1960's."

"Medicare's new drug plan is projected to cost an average of $80 billion a year over the next decade, adding nearly 20% to the health care program's annual price tag."

I do agree that one day we are going to have to pay for this unbridled spending. I don't see either side of the aisle attempting to do anything about it.

I think we all agree that spending is out of control. As for social programs spending increases, I think Katrina expenses are included in that. Also, the amount we are spending and will be spending for the care of the thousands of soldiers maimed in body and spirit in Iraq will also account for that increased spending.

I wonder at anyone who defends the Bush reign as successful in any way. If you look outside your ivory tower, you will know how bad things are.

"Of course, when you have a single-minded purpose of tearing down the president, why allow logic and rational thought to enter the mix?"

Gosh, that sounds familiar....

Dan: "For you bleeding hearts who think think Repbulicans starve children: "Spending on social programs, from education to veterans healthcare, has risen faster than at any time since the 1960's.
"Medicare's new drug plan is projected to cost an average of $80 billion a year over the next decade, adding nearly 20% to the health care program's annual price tag."

Sounds like the Republicans are the Socialists that they accuse the Democrats of being.

Yvonne,

I don't think the plan is really to reduce the amount of money coming in from income taxes. The plan was to reduce the income tax rate so that the economy would be improved. This would, in theory, cause more taxable income to be generated, and although taxed at a lower rate, would actually increase tax revenue in the long run.

That's the plan, anyway.

I would agree, however, that the government (nor it's people) should never spend more than it takes in. For all those who like to criticize the government for doing so, let me ask you this question. Got any debt? Credit card, mortgage, etc? Hard to throw rocks when you live in glass houses.

Mr. Clauhs,
Seems that we are all out of step---NOT YOU! We must embrace the "BORROW AND SPEND" philosophy of the Republican Party. The party that controls all three branches of the federal governement must now accept the blame for scandals, and for unwisely spending money.

Yesterday was a bad day. I watched McCain on Meet the Press and he lost my vote. Now there is NO one out there who has any semblance of being a straight talker.

Neo: Thanks for the graph. I do note the $2.8T in Dan's commentary is about $600B more than the $2.2B in your chart. Is that the federal deficit everone's talking about?

Also of note: The multiple $80B emergency appropriatations for Iraq, Iraq again, Katrina and Iraq for a third time are all "Emergency Appropriatations" which means by definintion "Off Budget" - and therefore they are not even included in the Dan's $2.8B number.

I'll never understand how Iraq can be an "Emergency Appropriatation three years in a row. And ya know what, I don't think it's in the Pres' 2007 budget requrest either ... hmmm.

Good thing we are being "led" by a Congress that has been in Conservative Hands for the past 12 years!

You'll get no argument from me about the government spending too much. I pointed to the graph so Yvonne would know how a rocket scientist can increase revenue to the federal coffers by cutting taxes.

Yellowdog, no to your questions for me. When we did have a mortgage and credit card debt, it was always manageable, never bought more than we could pay for in the reasonable future. I expect the same from the government.

Another reason many say the economy is booming is that sooo many are living beyond their means using low interest rates to buy bigger houses and fun stuff on their credit cards. Some are also living on credit cards to buy groceries and gas. Credit card companies have doubled the minimun monthly payments as a form of tough love. Heard on NPR this morning that while the new house sales are rising, the foreclosurers are rising at a faster rate.

O.K. all you liberals have fussed and whined about the Rep. and Bush, the great Satan, for spenting like drunken sailer. I noticed you didn't complaint about all the perks the Dems put in the budget to. Just the Reps. I personally would like to see every department be forced to reduce their spenting, except the defendence dept, by 30%. And Congress would not be able to put pork spenting in it also.

But while we are blaming Bush for everything, I guess be need to blame Bush for our blooming ecom., low unemployment, blooming home ownerships, AND all the other good news you don't want to talk about.

Most of us would rather see the glass half full, where you would rather see it half empty. If you liberals prefer to be miserable your whole live, be my guess. I, for one, prefer to see this country going forward. You go in what ever direction you prefer.

All I can say to you, Bobby, is you must be living on another planet.

Yvonne,

A M E N !!!

Amen from me also. Wonder where these folks live and who they associate with. Do they listen to the news? I saw the foreclosure article on the N&R just now. Again I say, come down from your ivory tower. Get to know how the majority of US citizens live. I know that our poor are better off than many other countries' poor. I also know that those in power have so much money that they don't really know or seem to care about the common folks.

Again I say, Congress and the White House are controlled by the Republican Party. They get all the glory (which is none in my opinion)and all the blame, IMO. Also don't defend the corrupt Democrats. Just know they have very little power at this time.

Remember one President who said "The buck stops here". Still does.

Bobby:

There's some truth to saying the glass is half full, and I too am often guilty of looking at it half empty - but in my defense, all the things you state are kinda - depends - type things.

Here's one example: Is the economy REALLY Booming? The white house says so:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/

But others see a darker side:

" the share of GDI going to corporate profits has risen by 3.9 percentage points, while the share going to labor compensation has fallen by 1.4 percentage points."

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060330

Everyone of your examples has similar dual-sides, and even the Heritage Foundation says "Deficits ... signal government spending that will have to be paid for by future generations, often with higher taxes."

JDR, my numbers were just copied from USA Today, no research on my part.

Carol, you are correct in that debt needs to be manageable. Debt itself is not necesarily bad, how many of you paid cash for your home or cars? I didn't. But I didn't buy a home or car for a price that exceeded my ability to pay for them. (I do take pride in paying my credit card in full every month for the last 10+ years).

Bobby, anyone here can tell you I'm quite conservative, but the enormous spending and debt under the Bush admin. is really concerning to me. The communist Chinese finance alot of that debt, pretty scary. Unlike Deacon, who on this thread and all others, pins 100% the blame for any problem solely on Rebublicans, I don't see Democrats complaining about excessive spending either. I think they ALL have been miserable stewards of our money.

Sooner or later this debt will come home to roost and could have devastating effects on the economy.

Well said, Dan. On this we agree.

I'm trying to figure out Yuonne, what planet you are on. To you, the only time things are good is when liberals are in control. NO party has that kind of control. For your information, and I know it will be a shock to you, but NO president has the power to spend any money without the consent of congress.

I know that it still a shock for you to hear this, but dems spent like drunken sailors also. The only different is you like what they spent it on and not what the Reps like to spent on.

If it was up to me, I would do away with all pork spenting. And reduce all departments of the federal goverment by 30%, except the defense department. That is the only expense the federal goverment is, by the constitution, required to collect taxes for.

Bobby,

Not only do I know you have done a lot of assuming about what I think, so does everyone else who has read your post. I do not need to say more.

Yvonne, I will hold you to that.

Bobby,
You have no credibility---certainly not after that "space cadet" post earlier. Republicans can't stand having their own rhetoric used against them! No one here has defending the Dems, who have in the past, done the same thing. What we are doing is holding the Party's feet to the fire for what it has done to our government! That IS the party that controls all three branches of government.

Why am I even talking to Bobby???