Greenspan is FOR tax cuts!

[Ornery]

Is there anybody here that doesn't think paying off the debt is the best plan? No? OK, can we move on now?

rahvin, you vote for whoever the hell you want to, but why you would let Gore spend tour own money for you is beyond me.

DABANSHEE, TBM asked about Reagan's tax cutting plan. The FACT is reducing the tax rate DID increase revenue. FACT, FACT FACT! Sorry, but it is!

The Democrats controlled Congress. They spent, spent, SPENT! I suppose Reagan should have shut down the government instead of signing those budgets. Apparently, he made promises to Congressional leaders to pass their budget if they allowed the tax cut. Bottom line is, he proved cutting the monstrous tax rate increased revenue. All congress proved was that they could pile up debt!

 

[JellyBaby]

<< DABANSHEE, TBM asked about Reagan's tax cutting plan. The FACT is reducing the tax rate DID increase revenue. FACT, FACT FACT! Sorry, but it is! >>

Ornery, this is quite true. DABANSHEE failed to point out that while revenues increased to due economic growth, the reason the nation went into debt was because at the same time the tax cuts were implemented, new spending increased tremendously and we had a large military to support (remember the Cold War?). This was the ultimate realization, in my mind at least, that the two-party system isn't optimal (one side delivers tax cuts but must simultaneously increase spending for new programs due to the other side).

 

[MemphisBleek]

i shoot anybody try take my cash

 

[Ornery]

MemphisBleek, you rock!

Why didn't I think of that? Damn it Gore, you'll get my money when you pry it from my cold dead fingers!

 

[JellyBaby]

<< Damn it Gore, you'll get my money when you pry it from my cold dead fingers! >>

How can you prevent it? He'll soon confiscate your gun. You won't even have that primitive recourse.

 

[chess9]

Tom:

Nice post. What are you doing, reforming?

I agree with the author of that Slate article-this issue is really political, not economic. I disagree that Congress shouldn't follow Greenspan's advice.

I think it's a stretch to say without qualification that Greenspan supports tax cuts. He supports them if the surplus is not held until interest rates start to rise, or if the money isn't used to pay off the debt now. On that issue, paying down the national debt, I am soundly in Greenspan's corner. Greenspan thinks a tax reduction is the second best option.

Greenspan objects to increased Federal spending because it tends to be inflationary and raises interest rates, both of which we have recently avoided thanks to his leadership. (Some increased Federal spending might not be inflationary. It depends on a complex set of factors which we could only guess on at this point.) But, generally, Gore's budget spends too much money on existing and new government programs. Congress and the President will utimately cut much of that back, just as they would strongly modify any tax cut proposals if Bush is elected. What you hear is not what you'll be getting.

A tax cut is the politically expedient thing to do for both parties. The Republicans are pulling out all the stops to get into the White House. As Red has accurately pointed out, they are not above trying to buy your vote. The Democrats really aren't much better because they are promising many social programs to the voters, some of which I happen to agree with.

Ultimately, this boils down to a question of political philosophy. I happen to think large tax cuts that benefit the rich for the most part are unfair, and will tend to destroy democracy, rather than sustain and build it. Those who lean towards free market economic theory think otherwise. I also happen to think that we can't promise the moon, the stars and the sky to the American public, as the Democrats are prone to do. We must exercise fiscal restraint. Greenspan has been holding our hands for quite a while now and I think he has more to do with the extended economic prosperity of this country than any single other person-including the President and Congress. We've had lots of good luck as well for the last 10 years.

The economy is starting to enter what I believe is a period of pre-recession. Housing starts are down, interest rates have been rising, oil prices are up, and inflation is threatening. So, if Bush gets elected, will he face the same chant in four years his father heard: &quot;It's about the economy, stupid&quot;?

 

[jjm]

Ornery - That single line in Greenspan's speech is your entire foundation for claiming that he endorses tax cuts? I think even an inexperienced critical reader, after reading the entire speech, might easily be able to suggest that your point is pretty weak. But if you really can't swallow it, fine; live your dream.

His quote, especially when taken in the context of the rest of the speech, simply acknowledges that there is a slightly better choice to make between the two bad choices that Congress might make. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

I think it is interesting that we have all discussed this issue, but the original author of this thread, after seeing his entire point shot to death, has not even bothered responding.

By the way, I think all of the surpluses (assuming we are lucky enough to have them for a long time; a big maybe) should go to debt reduction. Let's forget about direct tax cuts and any additional spending.

Also, which party is the big spender anyway? Of each of the spending bills passed thus far this year, Congress (controlled by which party?) has increased the total amount requested by Clinton. Most of it has been pork earmarked for the folks back home.

 

[JellyBaby]

chess9's post makes me wonder if fiscal responsibility at the federal level could translate into better management at home. People today, young and old, see government getting away with a high balance on the nation's charge card. This just fuels their own journey to rack up debt.

The other week I thought I read a statistic that the average american family has at least $6,000 worth of credit card debt alone! Now I'm certainly not blaming this on the federal government but perhaps if the feds set a tone of fiscal restraint it might influence the decisions of the nation as a whole. It's too bad politicians can't run on this theme, though many independents do try. At least state economies have been running surpluses for a while now.

 

[Ornery]

Damn jjm. Where did I say that Greenspan endorsed tax cuts? For the third time, I said that since Gore and Bush were going to deal with the debt in the same way, that point is moot. What's left is how to handle the balance of the surplus. Greenspan said the tax cut was the better option to Gore's plan. Where is it that you keep going off track here?

 

[jamesglewisf]

I'm for tax cuts. And you can quote me.

And I'm for tax cuts across the board. Once I'm wealthy, I'd still like to be paying less taxes.

 

[chess9]

JJM:

Congress just passed a big pork bill loaded with goodies for Trent Lott, Tom Daschle and many others. Clinton complained about the pork, but agreed to sign the bill.

You are absolutely right about paying off the debt. Call me old fashioned or uncreative or poorly informed or stupid or a towel boy if you wish, but that makes a lot of sense to me.

JB: Yes, absolutely. The Feds and the States spend like drunken sailors on their last shore leave. Of course the kids pick up on it. We have the lowest savings rate of any industrialized nation. Our culture has become a throw away, consumption driven plastic spending machine. Even Republicans, who you would think would have better instincts are doing the same thing. It's a disease, and I'm not kidding. Greenspan has been the only one giving us any medicine and the politicians don't want to take theirs!

 

[Ornery]

... and furthermore we've all established that paying down the debt was the best choice. What is that, like about the 50th time this has been mentioned? DAMN!

Gore ain't gonna do that and neither is Bush, so what are ya gonna do, vote for Brown, Buchanen or Nader? Swell, talk about dreaming!

 

[JellyBaby]

<< so what are ya gonna do, vote for Brown, Buchanen or Nader? Swell, talk about dreaming! >>

It's no fantasy. Imagine what would happen if a third-party consistently achieved 20% or better in the popular vote! You can bet your plastic monkey toys and legos that the pork-parties with take notice. Policy decisions will begin to reflect the nation's will. You need only look to the contributions the &quot;original&quot; reform party made back in '92 -- Perot ran on a host of economic issues. That paved the way toward a balancing the budget and getting campaign finance reform on the table.

 

[Ornery]

Agreed JB, but I voted for Perot in '92 and all I got was this damn Clinton!

 

[jjm]

I think it is imprudent to suggest that any portion of the projected surplus be targeted for tax cuts until the national debt is substantially reduced. Those surplus projections are in no way assured.

 

[JellyBaby]

<< Agreed JB, but I voted for Perot in '92 and all I got was this damn Clinton! >>

In interm solution would be to vote for a pork-party candidate for president while at the same time voting out republicrats at your state and local levels. This is how it must work anyway (from the bottom, up). So look at your state ballots and be sure to vote for independents, libertarians, etc. Then go ahead and choose yer poison at the federal level. I don't think this is too unreasonable, do you?

 

[thebestMAX]

ORNERY-

What the hell is wrong with you? I brought it up, I agree with you, I know it worked, I praised Ronald Regan.

PLEASE dont lump me with these losers like DABANSHEE, 403Forbidden and the the like.

Havent we always got along, cars, women ad all the rest?

 

[Ornery]

Pssstt, TBM. [whisper]What are you talking about? I know you're one of the good guys...[/whisper]

&quot;...I think it is imprudent to suggest that any portion of the projected surplus be targeted for tax cuts until the national debt is substantially reduced. Those surplus projections are in no way assured.&quot;

Just hand over the money, you can always tax my ass off later. Once Washington spends my money, it's gone for good! And for God knows what!

Speaking of God knows what JB, if I get rid of the Republicans at the local level, I'll be swimming in more programs like our local RTA. Yep, the same program that has all these empty buses driving up and down the streets driven by overpaid drivers and managed by overpaid bureaucrats. :|

These same SOBs made a land grab from a local &quot;rich guy&quot; through imminent domain. They just had to have this man made harbor for the sake of a nature preserve/park. The city is even going to run the restaurant/club there for the sake of the public.

The only way I know to stop this kind of crap is by voting the &quot;right&quot; politicians in at the local level.

 

[chess9]

Ornery:

Well, there is good news. Your city won't be running the restaurant for long. I can't name a single city that has successfully managed a restaurant. (I'm sure there must be at least one, but the list of failures is very long.) One of my brothers owned several restaurants at one time and this was always a bone of contention with him-the government competing with him. He is very happy when another one fails and makes a point of telling me about it. He's a real right winger. You guys would love each other.)

The bad news is the city will have to lose several million dollars of your tax money before they realize how stupid they were. Of course, you could be financing a baseball stadium. BWAHUAHAHAHAHA!

 

[rahvin]

<<rahvin, you vote for whoever the hell you want to, but why you would let Gore spend tour own money for you is beyond me>>

Who said I support gore? You didn't read what I wrote.

 

[rahvin]

<<... and furthermore we've all established that paying down the debt was the best choice. What is that, like about the 50th time this has been mentioned? DAMN!

Gore ain't gonna do that and neither is Bush, so what are ya gonna do, vote for Brown, Buchanen or Nader? Swell, talk about dreaming!>>

Contrary to your apparent belief, the president does NOT dictate spending. He submits a proposed budget and congress makes modifcations and votes on it and presents a passed bill to the president for signing. As I said before NOTHING has been decided in one iota. Personally I would rather see the majority in congress and the party of the president in opposite corners (not unlike the current situation). This leads them in the direction of not being able to do ANYTHING and in fact benefits the american people more. It's sad that a deadlocked goverment has provided more benefits over the past 8 years than any goverment that was made up of a majority of one party.

 

[Ornery]

Yuck chess9, that whole situation just pissed me off on principle alone. Many voters here are VERY jealous of this man's wealth. That's how the city was able to pursue the land in the first place. Oh well, he got the last laugh. He made a lot of improvements to his property before the city got it. Bumped the price up pretty good. Yeah, my money! :|

rahvin, when's the last time we had a GOP president and GOP lead Congress? Could we please just try it for four years? The speed of progress would make the THE CONTRACT WITH AMERICA look slow!

• Marriage penalty... gone!
• Tort Reform... done!
• Social Security Privatization... You got it!
• Late-term abortions... a thing of the past!
• 50% Death tax... bye bye!
• Vouchers... Learn baby learn!
• Welfare Reform...Round Two!

And all at a speed Washington has never seen before. Hey, give somebody else a turn. Afraid of progress or what?

 

[jjm]

Ornery - The only flaw in your complaint is that if Congress is forced to use the surplus to pay down debt first, just how are they going to spend it too? Oops, that's a toughie!

As for all those wonderful Republican initiatives, fat chance. After the election season they will be distant memories regardless of who is in office. Look at the pork your fiscally conservative Republicans are loading into current spending bills. Why aren't they saving that money for beloved tax cuts too?

I also hope they don't dump the investment responsibilities for Social Security on Americans via privatization. An entire industry of fly-by-night investment advisors would spring up overnight. What's that you say? Congress should also set up regulations to control what people invest in? Hmmm, sounds like another big government program. I thought Republicans were opposed to that.