The BIG Wagon

[double dribble]

The top 1% of wage earners pay 39% of all the taxes.
The top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of all taxes.
The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all taxes.

And the liberal democRATS want to INCREASE the tax burden on the top 25% of wage earners! They want to create a BIG WAGON so that the vast majority (already 86%) can RIDE while just a few have to PUSH! They do this with CLASS ENVY and convince the majority that the "rich" deserve to have to pay more because they have won lifes lottery.
Liberal motto: Punish achievers and reward slackers and mediocrity.
What are we going to do when we have too many in the wagon and not enough people pushing?

[Ixiah]

Your post essentially indicates you don't want to raise taxes. Okay, fine lets say we dont. How are we to reduce the deficit? There are only two ways to do that - raise taxes or cut spending. Here is how it is being spent now:

36% - Social security
23% - National defense
13% - Medicaid, food stamps, temporary assistance and SSI
12% - Agriculture, education, deposit insurance, commerce, NASA
8% - Interest on debt
6% - health research, public health programs, unemployment compensation, assisted housing
2% - Law enforcement and general government

1. Lets first rule out social security - the old folks wont stand for it and even Bush had to back off.

2. You indicated a desire to maintain a strong defense. Okay that one is out.

3. You have about as much chance as an ice cube in hell of cutting the third one.

4. This group is possible but it generally has strong local backing. Also some of these programs serve very useful functions in our society (such as the FDIC). Cuts are possible but not deep cuts needed to make any difference.

5. Default on the debt? Next please. Just to get some idea how much we are spending here - this amount is 27 times the budget of NASA (which makes up a very small part of #4)!

6. These last two just dont make up enough $ to truly make a difference. Also do you think eliminating the funds for unemployment would sit well with the voting public?

Add to this those tax cuts you have been trumpetiing. Here is a breakdown of them:

Make Bush's cuts permanent: Cost 228 billion annually
McCain's new tax cuts: Cost 225 billion (his estimate btw) or if you add in the cost per the treasury department it would be 365 billion (there is controversy over the true cost of two of his tax breaks).

McCain has also proposed some big spending items where the cost is unknown:

McCain pledged to give all veterans a plastic card to get medical treatment anywhere they choose

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40821

A new student loan program

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080829/0429145.html

Tax write-offs for companies that provide Internet service to rural areas.

Personally I have nothing against any of these plans other then where the $ will come from.

McCain's original answer on where to cut $ to fund the tax cuts was earmarks. For starters if you cut every earmark it would not come close to those amounts. Even worse is there is a sleight of hand here. Earmarks frequently dont add any to the deficit! They rather dictate to another branch where to spend the money already given. So cutting them will save little $. The new answer is to cut $100 billion out of non defense items. Of course this wont come close to meeting the costs of the tax cuts.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_budget_according_to_mccain_part_i.html

Summary:

The deficit for the current year is estimated to be 410 billion. McCain even wants to add tax cuts which are close to 450 billion to this with no similar reductions in spending to make up the shortfall. Sadly, it seems your post is very reflective of the sad state of Republican party economics. It has become a party of cut taxes at any cost, big government, runaway spending, and irresponsible deficits. Perhaps it is only fitting that it be represented by red.

[SB Shock]

Your post essentially indicates you don't want to raise taxes. Okay, fine lets say we dont. How are we to reduce the deficit? There are only two ways to do that - raise taxes or cut spending.

Actually there is a third - you freeze the budget.

[double dribble]

IXIAH, Here is a little history lesson that liberals don't want you to know:
EVERY time taxes are cut, revenues INCREASE to the federal govt. Tax cuts stimulate the economy therefore tax revenues increase. It worked for JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush. In fact, tax revenues under GW Bush were record highs! The problem was that they (partly due to fighting a war AND a democRAT majority in congress) increased spending even more.
Cut taxes, freeze spending and guess what....NO DEFICIT! And you stimulate the economy and create jobs as well. Gosh what a bargin!!

Bush inherited a recession from Clinton and the tech bubble. Then we were attacked on 9/11, we have fought 2 wars, and hurricane Katrina. In spite of all of that, we had 52+ consecutive months of economic growth. AND lower unemployment than the 70's, 80's or 90's. Thank GOD for the Bush tax cuts to help our economy stay strong through it all.

In spite of the fact that our economy grew at 3% last month, you libs want to convince everyone that we are in recession. I think you need to look up the definition of recession

Here is some home work for you big brained libs: How many months has Bush been president? How many months have we had economic growth?
GEt back to us on that would ya?

[Ixiah]

IXIAH, Here is a little history lesson that liberals don't want you to know:

Its really funny - anyone who wishes responsible spending is a lib. For your information I am a staunch fiscal conservative and have NEVER wavered my opinion on that! Are you going to call the heritage foundation a liberal think tank next?

Edit: In reading your post you dont call me a liberal specifically here but at the end of your post.

As for history lessons - well I have studied history for most of my life and hope you are well versed - hate to fight the unarmed.

EVERY time taxes are cut, revenues INCREASE to the federal govt. Tax cuts stimulate the economy therefore tax revenues increase. It worked for JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush. In fact, tax revenues under GW Bush were record highs! ?

And deficits are up as well - what is your point?! We are talking about deficits not revenues. Do you really want to see the deficit diagrams of the people mentioned?

Also I would expect tax revenues to be higher when you have added 20,000,000 more people - wouldn't you?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_population

The problem was that they (partly due to fighting a war AND a democRAT majority in congress) increased spending even more.

Gee - I seem to recall that the Republicans controlled the house until 2006 and the democrats still dont have the 60 seats necessary in the Senate to override a fillibuster. I would have to say your understanding of history is a bit dubious.

You completely ignore the spending under the Republican leadership between 2000 and 2006.

The prescription drug benefit alone will cost 407 billion between 2004 and 2013.

"Non-defense discretionary spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush as under President Clinton. Examples of discretionary spending increases between 2001 and 2006".

"Education is up 62 percent, or 10 percent annually; International affairs is up 74 percent, or 12 percent annually; Health research and regulation is up 57 percent, or 9 percent annually; Veterans’ benefits are up 46 percent, or 8 percent annually; Science and basic research is up 40 percent, or 7 percent annually. and Overall non-defense discretionary outlays are up 46 percent, or 7.8 percent annually."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/tst021606a.cfm

Cut taxes, freeze spending and guess what....NO DEFICIT!

Show me when we will see the second half of that equation.

And you stimulate the economy and create jobs as well. Gosh what a bargin!!

Bush inherited a recession from Clinton and the tech bubble. Then we were attacked on 9/11, we have fought 2 wars, and hurricane Katrina. In spite of all of that, we had 52+ consecutive months of economic growth. AND lower unemployment than the 70's, 80's or 90's.

Switching subjects - nice idea. This is about deficits so try to stay on the subject. You can't even use the war as an excuse.

The Heritage Foundation, usually a White House ally, found that 55 percent of the spending increases since Bush took office had nothing to do with defense or homeland security. The Heritage analysis also concluded that spending has reached $20,000 per household.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG1710.cfm

Thank GOD for the Bush tax cuts to help our economy stay strong through it all.

Debt is always that way - until you start paying the bill.

In spite of the fact that our economy grew at 3% last month, you libs want to convince everyone that we are in recession. I think you need to look up the definition of recession.

Where did I mention recession in my post?!

Here is some home work for you big brained libs: How many months has Bush been president? How many months have we had economic growth?
GEt back to us on that would ya?

Well since I am not a lib I can skip this part.

[Ixiah]

[quote="Ixiah"]

IXIAH, Here is a little history lesson that liberals don't want you to know:

Its really funny - anyone who wishes responsible spending is a lib. For your information I am a staunch fiscal conservative and have NEVER wavered my opinion on that! Are you going to call the heritage foundation a liberal think tank next?

Edit: In reading your post you dont call me a liberal specifically here but at the end of your post.

As for history lessons - well I have studied history for most of my life and hope you are well versed - hate to fight the unarmed.

EVERY time taxes are cut, revenues INCREASE to the federal govt. Tax cuts stimulate the economy therefore tax revenues increase. It worked for JFK, Reagan, and GW Bush. In fact, tax revenues under GW Bush were record highs! ?

And deficits are up as well - what is your point?! We are talking about deficits not revenues. Do you really want to see the deficit diagrams of the people mentioned?

Also I would expect tax revenues to be higher when you have added 20,000,000 more people - wouldn't you?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_population

The problem was that they (partly due to fighting a war AND a democRAT majority in congress) increased spending even more.

Gee - I seem to recall that the Republicans controlled the house until 2006 and the democrats still dont have the 60 seats necessary in the Senate to override a fillibuster. I would have to say your understanding of history is a bit dubious.

You completely ignore the spending under the Republican leadership between 2000 and 2006.

The prescription drug benefit alone will cost 407 billion between 2004 and 2013.

"Non-defense discretionary spending has grown twice as fast under President Bush as under President Clinton. Examples of discretionary spending increases between 2001 and 2006".

"Education is up 62 percent, or 10 percent annually; International affairs is up 74 percent, or 12 percent annually; Health research and regulation is up 57 percent, or 9 percent annually; Veterans’ benefits are up 46 percent, or 8 percent annually; Science and basic research is up 40 percent, or 7 percent annually. and Overall non-defense discretionary outlays are up 46 percent, or 7.8 percent annually."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/tst021606a.cfm

Cut taxes, freeze spending and guess what....NO DEFICIT!

Show me when we will see the second half of that equation.

And you stimulate the economy and create jobs as well. Gosh what a bargin!!

Bush inherited a recession from Clinton and the tech bubble. Then we were attacked on 9/11, we have fought 2 wars, and hurricane Katrina. In spite of all of that, we had 52+ consecutive months of economic growth. AND lower unemployment than the 70's, 80's or 90's.

Switching subjects - nice idea. This is about deficits so try to stay on the subject. You can't even use the war as an excuse.

The Heritage Foundation, usually a White House ally, found that 55 percent of the spending increases since Bush took office had nothing to do with defense or homeland security. The Heritage analysis also concluded that spending has reached $20,000 per household.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG1710.cfm

Thank GOD for the Bush tax cuts to help our economy stay strong through it all.

Debt is always that way - until you start paying the bill.

In spite of the fact that our economy grew at 3% last month, you libs want to convince everyone that we are in recession. I think you need to look up the definition of recession.

Where did I mention recession in my post?!

Here is some home work for you big brained libs: How many months has Bush been president? How many months have we had economic growth?
GEt back to us on that would ya?

Well since I am not a lib I can skip this part. Btw - you are indirectly insulting republicans.

[ABC]

X, most, maybe all, "staunch" fiscal conservatives would never, ever support a tax increase.

So, given that, what do you propose being cut?

Of course, by saying that, I am doing what the press and liberals usually do when they describe restraints on growth.

Getting rid of annual defecits can be done by restraining rates of budget growth. Republicans nor Democrats have not shown a prospenity for that over the last several years.

The Republicans, along with Pres. Clinton, did that after 1995. The President signed the budget passed by a Republican Congress that reduced the growth in spending and was in the black for many years in a row and retired some debt. Many observers said the Republicans couldn't do it, that childeren wouldn't get milk for lunch, the elderly would be eating Alpo blah blah blah blah blah. And of course, that didn't happen. The world did not end. Yeah, I know a little history too.

Growth was restrained by eliminating programs and prioritizing spending.

Much of the recent budget defecits are because Federal receipts are expected to actually decrease b/c of the economy. In the mid-2000s, receipts were increasing more than 10% a year. So, had Congress and President restrained spending growth during these times, we would be just fine now.

Our budget is so huge, (the 2009 budget will be more than $3 trillion) that just a 1/2 % less of growth can make a huge difference.

For example, if the next budget inceases just 4% rather than 5%, it is a difference of $155 billion. That ain't chump change.

If you want to make it worse, just raise taxes.

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem, and I will blame the Republican leadership in charge over the last 6 - 8 years. NOW, I have a very, very difficult time believing it would have been any better under Democrat leadership in Congress.

[rrshock]

I don't think there would have been as much spending on defense or wars under a democratic leader. Because I simply don't think that the US would have been in this current war. There might have been some military operations, but nothing to the scale that we have seen.

Everyone spends money. It doesn't matter if it is a Republican or a Democrat. It just seems that the last couple of Republican Presidents that we have had, the spending has been worse. Mostly due to them starting wars. Clinton wouldn't have started a war, and I highly doubt Obama would unless our country was attacked (more than just 9/11 btw).

[Denny Crane]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a21xUaGoRzLk&refer=home

[double dribble]

ABC, right on my brutha!

[SubGod22]

Clinton would have continued to ignore the problem and launch a few more missles into the middle of nowhere and be done.

We could save a lot of money elsewhere. How many worthless gov't agencies/departments get tons of money they don't really need? How much money goes to the UN every year? How much money do we give away for "humanitarian" reasons to countries that hate us and use the money for reasons other than why they have it? How many gov't organizations could get along fine with a lot less?

[rrshock]

Clinton would have continued to ignore the problem and launch a few more missles into the middle of nowhere and be done.

We could save a lot of money elsewhere. How many worthless gov't agencies/departments get tons of money they don't really need? How much money goes to the UN every year? How much money do we give away for "humanitarian" reasons to countries that hate us and use the money for reasons other than why they have it? How many gov't organizations could get along fine with a lot less?

I think you're absolutely correct on the humanitarian aid. Or just simply giving money to other countries. That really should stop except for extreme circumstances.

Some government agencies do need cuts made, but it seems like when the feds cut money to the states, the states cut money to the local govts, and then things get cut that shouldn't get cut. Like Law Enforcement, Fire Protection, EMS, stuff like that. Things that don't need cut and shouldn't be cut and should in fact have more money funneled into it, are the ones that get the first effects from government cutting. Not the BS programs that don't need to be going on at all to begin with.

[RoyalShock]

If the feds got back to only performing the functions expressly given them in the Constitution, leaving those things up to the states, it would save a boatload of money. They could start actually trying to pay off the national debt and the federal income tax could eventually go away.

[Ixiah]

Sorry for not responding sooner - I've been under the weather lately (and still am).

X, most, maybe all, "staunch" fiscal conservatives would never, ever support a tax increase.

Definition of a fiscal conservative per wikipedia: Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt.

A fiscal conservative (per the definition) wants the government to live within its means just like everyone else that posts here does. I think you are mixing up fiscal consrvatism with Republican ideology.

Think for just a moment about what your statement on never any new tax indicates. If there were NEVER any increase in tax revenue then how would the government supply our basic services (defense, roads, etc). Many of these are provided by businesses so these will always be a need to increase due to inflation. You may mean a tax rate increase which I can more understand. However, some taxes are flat in nature (drivers license for example) - so in order for government to provide the same service in future years it will have to increase taxes due to inflation.

IMHO tax increases are acceptable IF its a nominal increase (inlfation rate) to allow the government to do its necessary functions that it did in the prior year or if an unusual event has occured (war, disaster, etc).

So, given that, what do you propose being cut?

Thats the trillion dollar question isnt it?

Significant cuts mean you have to start looking at the big budget items (Social security and defense). Certainly there is a lot of waste in defense:

1. Ever hear of the Comanche hellicopter? Probably not, but we spent 7+ billion with little to show for it.

2. A-12 Avenger by General Dynamics - 2 billion spent and not even a prototype created.

3. We are paying private firms to guard our military bases with mixed quality.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0427/p02s01-usmi.html

Surely we have enough people somewhere in military service, that we are already paying, that can do this.

4. Even more worrying is we have no idea what large sums of money was even spent on! "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 TRILLION in transactions," - Donald Rumsfeld. To give some scale to that figure - try $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in the USA. Do I have to say: No records = no accountability = big $ waste.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

As for social security - if you do modest changes (lets say make a deductable $5 more or have a slightly less of an increase in payments) it adds up quickly because we are talking about a lot of people. The key here is that people have to feel that their sacrifices are not being frittered away elsewhere. So silly spending such as half a million federal dollars on this sort of garbage

http://www.krem.com/topstories/stories/NW_100105BUBalaskaairEL.b1da3dde.html

has to be caught early and squashed.

Of course, by saying that, I am doing what the press and liberals usually do when they describe restraints on growth.

Getting rid of annual defecits can be done by restraining rates of budget growth. Republicans nor Democrats have not shown a prospenity for that over the last several years.

The Republicans, along with Pres. Clinton, did that after 1995. The President signed the budget passed by a Republican Congress that reduced the growth in spending and was in the black for many years in a row and retired some debt. Many observers said the Republicans couldn't do it, that childeren wouldn't get milk for lunch, the elderly would be eating Alpo blah blah blah blah blah. And of course, that didn't happen. The world did not end. Yeah, I know a little history too.

Actually the best fiscal results have come when neither party has had complete control of Washington. No arguments here.

Growth was restrained by eliminating programs and prioritizing spending.

Much of the recent budget defecits are because Federal receipts are expected to actually decrease b/c of the economy. In the mid-2000s, receipts were increasing more than 10% a year. So, had Congress and President restrained spending growth during these times, we would be just fine now.

You are correct - as I pointed out earlier - much of the increases can't even be passed under the 'war excuse'.

Our budget is so huge, (the 2009 budget will be more than $3 trillion) that just a 1/2 % less of growth can make a huge difference.

For example, if the next budget inceases just 4% rather than 5%, it is a difference of $155 billion. That ain't chump change.

I'm not an actuary, so like most of us, I take official predictions as most probable.

If you want to make it worse, just raise taxes.

While I did indicate there are only two ways to reduce the deficit (raise taxes or cut spending) I tried to be clear I was advocating the latter. Please note that double dribble (no real response to my my pst btw) advocated additional TAX CUTS which I felt was a bad idea and is quite different from TAX INCREASES.

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem, and I will blame the Republican leadership in charge over the last 6 - 8 years. NOW, I have a very, very difficult time believing it would have been any better under Democrat leadership in Congress.

Have to disagree as long as Bush was president anyway. He would veto most social spending bills and many of the bills that republicans passed would never have made it out of committee.

[ABC]

Fiscal conservatives do not advocate tax rate increases. I did not say revenuye increases. Go try to sell that somewhere else.

Otherwise, it appears you agree with me.

But I must ask, do you advocate tax rate increases? If so, please don't call yourself a fiscal conservative.