Reply With Quote
Try 45%
you're in a thread discussing the federal deficit. Bring it.
Try 45%
The us government posted several budgetary surpluses under Clinton. That is by definition a reduction in the "deficit"
The fact that you use the term "deficit" in place of the correct term "debt" says volumes, to say nothing of the fact that you are ignoring the time value of money even when one subs utes the correct term in your post.
The overall debt in nominal terms did indeed get bigger under Clinton. Your assertion is correct, if one only looks at half the picture without meaningful context.
When one actually applies the time value of money, and looks at the debt in relation to the economy (time value of inflation subtracted from the time value of growth),
the overall debt as a percentage of the economy went down.
Meaning that our ability to pay the debt went up faster than the debt.
As I have pointed out to you several times the opposite has happened under Bush.
Yes or no, xray, Is the size of the overall debt growing faster than the economy is cause for concern?
45% of new issues, but what percentage of total outstanding. Nevertheless, 45% is high whether even if it's only on new issues.
Try 45%
The size of the Debt is absolutely a concern. However, are you willing to admit why the debt is growing at such an extraordinary rate?The us government posted several budgetary surpluses under Clinton. That is by definition a reduction in the "deficit"
The fact that you use the term "deficit" in place of the correct term "debt" says volumes, to say nothing of the fact that you are ignoring the time value of money even when one subs utes the correct term in your post.
The overall debt in nominal terms did indeed get bigger under Clinton. Your assertion is correct, if one only looks at half the picture without meaningful context.
When one actually applies the time value of money, and looks at the debt in relation to the economy (time value of inflation subtracted from the time value of growth),
the overall debt as a percentage of the economy went down.
Meaning that our ability to pay the debt went up faster than the debt.
As I have pointed out to you several times the opposite has happened under Bush.
Yes or no, xray, Is the size of the overall debt growing faster than the economy is cause for concern?
Because the federal debt has been run up by 1.5 trillion dollars in the last 6 years due to an ac ulation of federal budget deficits.
The blame rests on a congress composed of both Democrats and Republicans that are more concerned with the extreme short-term goal of getting themselves/their party re-elected and not with the long term interests of the nation.
During this time the budgets have been set by a congress and president from ONE party.
This system has rubber-stamped every pork-laden monstrosity that has been created.
As a former independent, I find the GOP betrayal of their fiscal principles especially galling. In the mid-90’s the GOP was all about fiscal discipline and dragged the Dems along with this agenda, but has since forgotten this entirely.
I hope that clarifies things.
That is too broad you need to be more specific. I gave you the courtesy of going through your charts, do the same and look at the charts I posted. It clearly shows why this country fiscally is in dire st8s.
ah, the much reviled en lement program bugaboo.
Raise taxes to pay for them.
before food stamps:
I don't mind taxes for: food, medicine, and generally keeping people in this country from starving and/or dying.
Social security will have to be reformed, sooner rather than later, granted.
BUT
Telling a drowning person that life preservers are too expensive doesn't cut it with me.
You're being overly dramatic. No one is drowning or starving. We're just spoiled in this country. People in the Sudan and Congo are better examples of starving and drowning people.ah, the much reviled en lement program bugaboo.
Raise taxes to pay for them.
before food stamps:
I don't mind taxes for: food, medicine, and generally keeping people in this country from starving and/or dying.
Social security will have to be reformed, sooner rather than later, granted.
BUT
Telling a drowning person that life preservers are too expensive doesn't cut it with me.
If we make no cuts to social spending the GAO determined we will have to increase taxes by 250% just to pay existing obligations. That means average tax rates of 60% with a high of 90% or so.
What doesn't cut it with me is people who don't understand the benefits of capitalism and use tales of people starving and drowning to promote their socialist agenda. Look at the results of your socialist agenda around the world and then tell me if it fixes the problem of poor sick people.
Last edited by 2centsworth; 06-22-2006 at 09:48 AM.
Actually I am not. That picture was taken in the US in 1963. The photographer was accompanying doctors that were performing a study on hunger and malnutrition in the US. The doctors indeed found children with distended stomachs eating a cup of rice or beans per day at starvation levels.
Human beings represent the most important asset any country has, period. This is true from an economic standpoint, and if we turn our back on our moral Christian duty to help our neighbors then my God have mercy on our souls.
I am NOT saying that we need to bankrupt ourselves through run-away en lement programs. There are ways to provide assistance in a smart way.
There should be audits and systems in place to prevent fraud and abuse, and we should try to encourage self-sufficiency to be sure, but to eliminate all such assistance is immoral.
Given the choice I would rather have the life preservers on our ship than not. There will never be a perfect solution, and I am willing to accept some degree of fraud and waste to help the majority of those who have a genuine need for assistance and willing to pay taxes for that.
RG, you want starving children. You can find them everyday here in San Antonio.
But it isn't because of a lack of food. It is because the parents aren't parents.
How many children have been beaten to death here in SA, in just the past few
months. How bout the child who was starved to death while the family was having
a nice Thanksgiving day dinner. We have poured about four TRILLION dollars into
welfare, and guess what, we still have poor people. Just look to New Orleans for
waste and the great welfare state. Sorry, but God helps those that help themselves.
That's a very unchristian at ude.
^^Why? I don't want people hungry. But you and I cant stop poverty. The
Government cant stop poverty. You can offer a helping hand. And I do, in my
own ways. But you cant support people for year after year after year after
generation after generation. Somewhere there has to be a stopping point. I am
speaking of the able bodied. People that are ill or have a serious disability, yes
they need help on a continual basis. But the able bodied. Get a job and take
care of your family.
I am NOT saying that we need to bankrupt ourselves through run-away en lement programs. There are ways to provide assistance in a smart way.
There should be audits and systems in place to prevent fraud and abuse, and we should try to encourage self-sufficiency to be sure, but to eliminate all such assistance is immoral.
Given the choice I would rather have the life preservers on our ship than not. There will never be a perfect solution, and I am willing to accept some degree of fraud and waste to help the majority of those who have a genuine need for assistance and willing to pay taxes for that.
"God helps those that helps themselves." XRAY
Great theological point! This is the sort of sentiment that should drive public policy.
Seperation of church/state=overrated.
Another great Christian heard from. Gee what we do without them.
Cast not the first stone..............you know the rest.
You're original.
yeah man, I think its great when you bring your Biblically derived personal religious beliefs into the discussion of what public policy should be!
you are a great American and a uniquely principaled individual!
Original?
What does that have to do with anything?
You don't have to be original when someone evokes their religiously conceived notions of who god helps vs who god doesn't help into a public policy debate.
do you live in the 60s? that was over 40 years ago.
[/quote]Human beings represent the most important asset any country has, period. This is true from an economic standpoint, and if we turn our back on our moral Christian duty to help our neighbors then my God have mercy on our souls.[quote]
we are helping by providing a system that encourages progress. There's a difference between helping and supporting. Americas poor would be considered kings in most other countries.
Quantify please.I am NOT saying that we need to bankrupt ourselves through run-away en lement programs. There are ways to provide assistance in a smart way.
eliminate all, of course not, but it's not fraud that costing us the most it's the aging of the population. How much does society owe each individual?There should be audits and systems in place to prevent fraud and abuse, and we should try to encourage self-sufficiency to be sure, but to eliminate all such assistance is immoral.
the people who recieve the assitance of which you speak do not pay taxes. Virtually 50% of the population doesn't pay taxes.Given the choice I would rather have the life preservers on our ship than not. There will never be a perfect solution, and I am willing to accept some degree of fraud and waste to help the majority of those who have a genuine need for assistance and willing to pay taxes for that.
Yeah, I have to agree. You brought it up about the personal religious
beliefs. You big old hearted Christian. You are pretty generous with other
folks money. You know, like, taxes. Go suck a lemon, it will draw your
face up a little bit.
nice personal attack. you are good at that.
you suggested public policy should reflect that "God helps those who help themselves." This was yr justification for why welfare should be out.
if you want to debate the worthiness of government welfare programs, thats fair. you and I would actually have a lot of common ground on that discussion.
but when you invoke your religious beliefs as justification for public policy, you lose any credibility. you are truly not worth arguing with because you are so obviously misguided at every turn. your worldview is little else other than a sad commentary on the state of America. you are an old, stale, twisted, partisan robot pretzel. kill yourself.
You didn't read the whole thread. I said nothing about "welfare should be
out". Go back and read what I said and then come back and tell me
your sorry.
ITALICS=2centsworth
do you live in the 60s? that was over 40 years ago.
I do not live in the 60's. I use it as data that would support the thesis that doing absolutely nothing would be unconscienable.
we are helping by providing a system that encourages progress. There's a difference between helping and supporting. Americas poor would be considered kings in most other countries.
The old "they'd be rich in africa" saw. Yes indeed, they would be if you plunked them down in the developing world and give them the same level of US dollar income after all the assistance is accounted for.
Hungry/uneducated/unemployed/hopeless is the same in any country. We can't directly help the other 6 billion human beings on the planet, but we can really effect our own countrymen.
Quantify [smart ways to provide assistance] please.
Increase audits of programs, limit overall time on programs, add work provisions, etc. A good deal of these things have been done, such as the welfare reform done in the 90's.
eliminate all [fraud], of course not, but it's not fraud that costing us the most it's the aging of the population. How much does society owe each individual?
Freedom from hunger, a modi of shelter, clothing, and basic medical care. We stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us.
the people who recieve the assitance of which you speak do not pay taxes. Virtually 50% of the population doesn't pay taxes
"Virtually 50% of the population doesn't pay taxes" is incorrect. I know you meant "income taxes to the federal government", right?
Let's use this as an opportunity to examine how taxation affects the poor.
They pay sales taxes that support local governments. Even with food stamps, you still gotta buy soap, clothes, transportation expenses. Even if you don't own a tiny house and pay property taxes, poorer americans still pay rent that is used to pay those taxes.
Most of even the poor still own at least a crappy car. That involves taxes at some point, even if you skip registration for a while.
Even those who don't pay income taxes still have 28% of their income gone in FICA, and other such mandatory federal taxes before they even get their paycheck.
I think it is a gross misconception to say that 50% of the people don't pay taxes. "The poor" pay their share of taxes and can least afford it.
Now let's examine the how poverty is defined. This goes back to your "rich people here are kings" meme.
There is a certain level of income in any country that will buy a very bare minimum of shelter, food/water, and clothing. If you really want to be a bit more realistic about it, you can also include some amount of health care. All the food in the world doesn't do you much good if you cut yourself get an untreated infection and die.
Beyond this bare minimum, you simply buy better food, better shelter, etc.
This is how we define poverty. If you take a dollar away from a person at or below this line, you force them to choose: shelter or food, clothing or food, utilities or clothing, etc. They must lose some vital part of what is physically necessary to sustain life.
RG. There is little thing called "earned income credit". Ever heard of it. Like
you don't pay income tax, they send you money anyhow. How's that for being
nice. I think 2500.00 bucks to some is pretty nice, don't you?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
