NationStates Jolt Archive

I was looking over Bush's propesed budget, and noticed that all coporations will pay about $260 billion in income taxes to fund Bush's $2.77 trillion budget. The total for individual income taxes is nearly $1.1 trillion. What is wrong here? Why can't poor exxon, which made roughly $10 billion in profit in a single quarter (a new record), pay just a little more? Corporations barely pay enough to cover the interest on our nearly $8.2 trillion debt. And now we're going to add at least $354 billion to the debt, if Congress is retarded and passes this budget.

Furthermore, defense spending is more than all domestic programs like interior, education etc... combined! And only about $120 billion of defense spending is for his adventuresd in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush claims to be making a better future for "our children and our grandchildren," while raking up a massive debt so that China will virtually own us by the time the next generation comes around. At least we had a budget surplus for the first time since Nixon when Clinton was around and the debt was under control.

If you were as good with fiscal handling as Bush, your house would be foreclosed and all your possessions taken away. Let's do that to Bush.[/rant] Thank you.

I've been wondering, does having such a huge debt hurt us? I really don't see how it does. Would someone care to enlighten me?

You left out the good parts. No money in the budget for Katrina cleanup or rebuilding in 2007. No money for Iraq or Afghanistan. And harsh budget cuts that will never get through Congress.

And that's assuming there's no other major disasters this year.

I've been wondering, does having such a huge debt hurt us? I really don't see how it does. Would someone care to enlighten me?

It can cause inflation; too many dollars are chasing too few goods and services when the economy is at or approaching its full productive capacity. That's why deficit spending is best reserved for times when it is necessary to boost the economy to a higher equilibrium point.

At present, solid GDP growth, full employment, and accelerating wage growth seem to point to an economy that is sustainable on its own and no longer requires government stimulus. Deficit spending just causes inflation now.

Bush wouldn't know fiscal responsibility if it roundhouse kicked him in the face.

.
Bush claims to be making a better future for "our children and our grandchildren," while raking up a massive debt so that China will virtually own us by the time the next generation comes around. At least we had a budget surplus for the first time since Nixon when Clinton was around and the debt was under control..

Clinton balanced the budget with help from Republicans and Democrats. He also *God forbid* used fiscal restraint. Now, both parties are trying to outspend each other with increasingly unsustainable and unnecessary entitlement programs while doing nothing to fix the problems with the ones currently in existence.

Yes tax cuts to the rich are the way to go!!!!!
Lets put a 110% tax on poor people!!

It can cause inflation; too many dollars are chasing too few goods and services when the economy is at or approaching its full productive capacity. That's why deficit spending is best reserved for times when it is necessary to boost the economy to a higher equilibrium point.

At present, solid GDP growth, full employment, and accelerating wage growth seem to point to an economy that is sustainable on its own and no longer requires government stimulus. Deficit spending just causes inflation now.
Deficit spending has been going on for the cast majority of American history, the largest exception was during Clinton's final four years in office when we had a growing surplus.

Anyways, where do you think we get this borrowed money from? Printing more would cause inflation, growing it on trees doesn't work (I've tried :D ), so we're left to borrow from other countries. Therefore, they will have a growing financial power over us, but worst of all, we could be dedicating all our receipts to paying off interest, in other words, bankruptcy. That is highly unlikely, but still very well probable if we keep up with Bush's spendthrift economics.

Deficit spending has been going on for the cast majority of American history, the largest exception was during Clinton's final four years in office when we had a growing surplus.

But large scale deficits are a pretty new phenomenon; after WWII was over, deficits were miniscule until the late 1970's. Even during Vietnam they were less than 1-2% of GDP.

However, it's a shame that none of the surplus remained; unfortunately, the surpluses couldn't really be translated in to much after March of 2000.

Anyways, where do you think we get this borrowed money from? Printing more would cause inflation, growing it on trees doesn't work (I've tried :D ), so we're left to borrow from other countries. Therefore, they will have a growing financial power over us, but worst of all, we could be dedicating all our receipts to paying off interest, in other words, bankruptcy. That is highly unlikely, but still very well probable if we keep up with Bush's spendthrift economics.

Inflation is good for borrowers, however. The national debt becomes less valuable in real terms over time, but of course the level of inflation necessary to mitigate the debt would be economically disasterous.

To finance the debt, we literally borrow a lot of it from ourselves, print some more money for another part, and sell Treasuries to other nations to cover the rest. People will lend to the US for a long time, simply because the ROI is so high relative to the safety (some 2.5% above Europe and 4.5% above Japanese bonds).

Inflation is good for borrowers, however. The national debt becomes less valuable in real terms over time, but of course the level of inflation necessary to mitigate the debt would be economically disasterous.

To finance the debt, we literally borrow a lot of it from ourselves, print some more money for another part, and sell Treasuries to other nations to cover the rest. People will lend to the US for a long time, simply because the ROI is so high relative to the safety (some 2.5% above Europe and 4.5% above Japanese bonds).
I used to joke that I would need runaway inflation to be able to get rid of my student loans, even though I'm locked in at about 2.75%--I have a lot of student loan debt. But yeah, inflation would be a boon for my debt situation, especially if wages rose with it. I remember during the early 80s, when inflation was just starting to come under control, though, that the come down from it can be brutal, especially for gamblers (read developers) who count on it to help pay for their construction loans. That was a major contributing factor to the S&L meltdown.

It's not all that out of whack - we spent a lot more as a percentage during the cold war "on the dollar" of tax money.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/alm...y/dodslice.html

Granted, it's only to 2003, but I'm not of the mind of time to compute current numbers.

In fact, there is a mound of good information on this subject here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/almanac/almanac/money/

Ok, perhaps I'll give it a whack:

2005:
2.57 trillion Federal Budget
427 billion Defence Budget
2.57 trillion / 427 billion = 6.01873536
2003:
2.157 trillion
396.1 billion
2.15700 trillion / 396.1 billion = 5.44559455

Also, we're #47 in military spending as a percentage of GDP. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_per_of_gdp) Quite reasonable, really.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has an analysis.

http://www.cbpp.org/12-20-05bud.htm

Finally, here's a pie chart of the 2005 budget. Defense spending isn't even that much, in retrospect, now is it?

http://img322.imageshack.us/img322/7813/totalfy057mo.gif

I used to joke that I would need runaway inflation to be able to get rid of my student loans, even though I'm locked in at about 2.75%--I have a lot of student loan debt. But yeah, inflation would be a boon for my debt situation, especially if wages rose with it. I remember during the early 80s, when inflation was just starting to come under control, though, that the come down from it can be brutal, especially for gamblers (read developers) who count on it to help pay for their construction loans. That was a major contributing factor to the S&L meltdown.

Exactly. The S&L crisis was directly related to the double-digit inflation of the late 70's/earky 80's...something like 13.5% per year. Of course, a lot of people had 10 or 30 year terms on their mortgages or other debt...so that could easily produce a double-digit negative interest rate.

2.75% is pretty good, and locked in at that. Now, they're variable up to 9% on PLUS loans...and that sucks.

Exactly. The S&L crisis was directly related to the double-digit inflation of the late 70's/earky 80's...something like 13.5% per year. Of course, a lot of people had 10 or 30 year terms on their mortgages or other debt...so that could easily produce a double-digit negative interest rate.

2.75% is pretty good, and locked in at that. Now, they're variable up to 9% on PLUS loans...and that sucks.I consolidated three years ago, when the getting was good, and I was in student deferment while I had my fellowship. Now I'm in an economic hardship deferment for at least the next year, even though I'm working full time, have full bennies and am making more than I've ever made before. And it's a good thing, too, because even with all that, living in south Florida is ess-pensive, even when you live as cheaply as I do.

It's not all that out of whack - we spent a lot more as a percentage during the cold war "on the dollar" of tax money.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/alm...y/dodslice.html

Granted, it's only to 2003, but I'm not of the mind of time to compute current numbers.

In fact, there is a mound of good information on this subject here:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/almanac/almanac/money/

Ok, perhaps I'll give it a whack:

2005:
2.57 trillion Federal Budget
427 billion Defence Budget
2.57 trillion / 427 billion = 6.01873536
2003:
2.157 trillion
396.1 billion
2.15700 trillion / 396.1 billion = 5.44559455

Also, we're #47 in military spending as a percentage of GDP. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_per_of_gdp) Quite reasonable, really.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has an analysis.

http://www.cbpp.org/12-20-05bud.htm

Finally, here's a pie chart of the 2005 budget. Defense spending isn't even that much, in retrospect, now is it?

http://img322.imageshack.us/img322/7813/totalfy057mo.gif Defense spending is still incredibly huge no matter which way you slice it. Reagan took it to the extreme with the gigantic defense expenditures during a time of peace. Now, I could go into a long ass rant about how there isn't a threat out there that requires such large defense spending, but I'm not going to because we all know it will be fruitless. Besides, that's not the main point here, the point is that corporations are paying a fifth of the taxes individuals pay. Corporations and the wealthy have gotten the vast majority of Bush's tax cuts (http://readythinkvote.com/vote_taxcut.html) while average Americans are stuck with the tab.

Yes tax cuts to the rich are the way to go!!!!!
Lets put a 110% tax on poor people!!

Pfft! 110% is pitiful! I say 1111%!

That way, our good friends in Corporate America can sleep soundly at night knowing their 10 Million Dollar pay checks are safe while the silly proles eat each other to survive. My what a great world that would be!

I've been wondering, does having such a huge debt hurt us? I really don't see how it does. Would someone care to enlighten me?
It doesn't look good on our credit report?

No LOAN for you!

It doesn't look good on our credit report?

As if America has a FICO score...

As if America has a FICO score...
It doesn't, but the recent move by China to divest itself of some dollars and move toward the Euro is the equivalent of a black mark on our national credit, from what I understand. If China doesn't buy our dollars, or refuses to keep doing so at low interest rates, we'll have to raise interest rates to compensate, or to lure other countries to buy them. If the international market feels that we're not going to get our fiscal shit together, they'll charge us a risk premium.

It's worth noting that as far as tax brackets go, in the US, "rich" just means you make over 200k a year.

Guess who falls into that category?

Small business owners.

It's worth noting that as far as tax brackets go, in the US, "rich" just means you make over 200k a year.

Guess who falls into that category?

Small business owners.
Only a small perecntage of small business owners make that, and those that do are smart enough to have accountants who reduce their tax liability. Less than 2% of all income earners in the US make more than $200K a year.

I was looking over Bush's propesed budget, and noticed that all coporations will pay about $260 billion in income taxes to fund Bush's $2.77 trillion budget. The total for individual income taxes is nearly $1.1 trillion. What is wrong here? Why can't poor exxon, which made roughly $10 billion in profit in a single quarter (a new record), pay just a little more? Corporations barely pay enough to cover the interest on our nearly $8.2 trillion debt. And now we're going to add at least $354 billion to the debt, if Congress is retarded and passes this budget.

Do you really think a corporation pays any tax at all? Think about it. Think hard.

If you were as good with fiscal handling as Bush, your house would be foreclosed and all your possessions taken away. Let's do that to Bush.[/rant] Thank you.
We actually can Constitutionally take his ranch, thanks to Kelo v. New London. I say we build a Lost Liberty Hotel resort on the land we seize through eminent domain!

It seems to me that Bush is just following through with Reagan's legacy and ideology.
Which is to spend so much and put the nation so far into debt that any and all administrations after will out of neccessity be forced into following extreme right-wing policies of drastically cutting govt services and privatising everything.

It seems to me that Bush is just following through with Reagan's legacy and ideology.
Which is to spend so much and put the nation so far into debt that any and all administrations after will out of neccessity be forced into following extreme right-wing policies of drastically cutting govt services and privatising everything.
AKA Starving the Beast

I'm bush like. The president is the most fiscally responsible president ever. Bush won the war in Afganistan and Iriq. He is defeating the tourists. Listening to their phone conversations. He is stoping inflation. Growing the economy. Cutting the deficiet in half and squaring it. He doesnt like black people. He is from texas. He signed the no child left behind act. Signed the patriot act. Got elected twice. So all you laberals go be laberal.

Corporations get out of paying taxes for multiple reasons, mainly creative accounting. That can be fixed rather simply by insuring that corporations issue the same reports to government as they do to their stockholders.

With that said, taxation on corporations is not necessarily a good thing. Corporations are not going to take the tax breaks they recieve and simply disperse it their management and shareholders. The management and shareholders will receive the same amount that their services required before the tax break.

What a tax break will do is lower the cost of investment, the required revenue for investment. It will give businesses more retained earnings for greater financial security. This all means cheaper goods and higher employment.

(Responsible FACTS)


Do you really think a corporation pays any tax at all? Think about it. Think hard.

What are you guys thinking? Facts and logic have no place in a thread like this. now shooo - you're ruining the pity party.

Clinton balanced the budget with help from Republicans and Democrats. He also *God forbid* used fiscal restraint. Now, both parties are trying to outspend each other with increasingly unsustainable and unnecessary entitlement programs while doing nothing to fix the problems with the ones currently in existence.

You better go check you history. Clinton didn't have a thing to do with balancing the budget. He kicked, screamed and cried about it until he literally had no choice but to sign off on it. He had no help doing it from anyone. They gave him no choice.

Yes tax cuts to the rich are the way to go!!!!!
Lets put a 110% tax on poor people!!
...and Limbaugh again lifts his ugly, surgery-scarred arse...

:eek:

You better go check your history. Clinton didn't have a thing to do with balancing the budget. He kicked, screamed and cried about it until he literally had no choice but to sign off on it. He had no help doing it from anyone. They gave him no choice.
Oh really? Enlighten us then with some links and some evidence. Otherwise, back to your fairyland of candycanes and security.

I could go on and on about this, but I'll sum it up.

You don't have a multi-trillion dollar deficit and help by instigating a TAX CUT! Especially when those cuts go to the rich, who are the ones who should be contributing more to society, not lining their pockets while we pay out of the ass! Oh, and your little "war on terror" that is taking up 60% of our budget isn't helping things either, neither are your social security plans, or the fact that my generation won't be able to pay off this deficit because we have to take care of the baby boomers who will do nothing but put us more into debt! What are you doing Mr. President?! I mean...you're supposed to be helping us you pathetic bastard...I...fuck it...just...fuck it...

I'm bush like. The president is the most fiscally responsible president ever. Bush won the war in Afganistan and Iriq. He is defeating the tourists. Listening to their phone conversations. He is stoping inflation. Growing the economy. Cutting the deficiet in half and squaring it. He doesnt like black people. He is from texas. He signed the no child left behind act. Signed the patriot act. Got elected twice. So all you laberals go be laberal.
You've made it 53 posts (as of this post) already?
Hmmm.
Anyone said, Please don't feed the trolls yet?
Curiously enough, i wouldn't mind hearing a bit more from you. You may provide an interesting angle on many topics presented here on NS.

You've made it 53 posts (as of this post) already?
Hmmm.
Anyone said, Please don't feed the trolls yet?
Curiously enough, i wouldn't mind hearing a bit more from you. You may provide an interesting angle on many topics presented here on NS.
Am I the only one who finds the suggestion to "be laberal" to sound vaguely sexual?

Am I the only one who finds the suggestion to "be laberal" to sound vaguely sexual?
Strangely enough, no.
I think that's one of the reasons that i'm curious to read future posts from Bushanomics. *nods*
Well, that, this line,
He is defeating the tourists. ...
and
Cutting the deficiet sounds like an interesting hybrid between deficit and deceit, which, given the thread topic, is quite contemporary indeed.

I could go on and on about this, but I'll sum it up.

You don't have a multi-trillion dollar deficit and help by instigating a TAX CUT! Especially when those cuts go to the rich, who are the ones who should be contributing more to society, not lining their pockets while we pay out of the ass! Oh, and your little "war on terror" that is taking up 60% of our budget isn't helping things either, neither are your social security plans, or the fact that my generation won't be able to pay off this deficit because we have to take care of the baby boomers who will do nothing but put us more into debt! What are you doing Mr. President?! I mean...you're supposed to be helping us you pathetic bastard...I...fuck it...just...fuck it...


It is quite apparent that you don't know much anout taxes or economics. Tax revenues increased 30% after the Bush tax cuts. You should review this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Under your simplistic model, all a store would have to do to increase profits would be to increase prices. That would makes coupons and sales a ridiculous exercise in futility. Anyone with retail experience will tell you that large sales result in the most profitable days of the year. Obviously then, there is a flaw with your infantile logic.

You ideas aren't even worth what you post end with. Come play again when you mature a bit.

It is quite apparent that you don't know much anout taxes or economics. Tax revenues increased 30% after the Bush tax cuts. You should review this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Under your simplistic model, all a store would have to do to increase profits would be to increase prices. That would makes coupons and sales a ridiculous exercise in futility. Anyone with retail experience will tell you that large sales result in the most profitable days of the year. Obviously then, there is a flaw with your infantile logic.

You ideas aren't even worth what you post end with. Come play again when you mature a bit.
It's obvious you don't know much about them either, or you're intentionally dishonest about the figures--take your choice. Tax revenues increased one time under Bush, and that was due to an accounting change, not due to tax cuts. In fact, if you want to play this Laffer Curve game, let's go back to the first president to use the theory and see what happened, since it was long enough ago that we can see the long term effects. Reagan slashed taxes early in his first term. that helped jumpstart the economy, and the reduction in oil prices soon after he took office helped fuel it, but revenues never made the leap that the Laffer curve predicted they would. In fact, the budget was so out of whack after one year that Reagan raised taxes incrementally every year until 1986, by which point he'd given back pretty much everything he slashed before. His next tax cut triggered the Bush 1 recession.

There is a balance point at which taxes are too high, and they become a drag on the economy, but there's also a point where they're too low. You can't just cut taxes and expect the same result every time. It seems a bit ironic to me that you accuse the previous poster of using infantile logic when you seem to have done the same thing.

It is quite apparent that you don't know much anout taxes or economics. Tax revenues increased 30% after the Bush tax cuts. You should review this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Under your simplistic model, all a store would have to do to increase profits would be to increase prices. That would makes coupons and sales a ridiculous exercise in futility. Anyone with retail experience will tell you that large sales result in the most profitable days of the year. Obviously then, there is a flaw with your infantile logic.

You ideas aren't even worth what you post end with. Come play again when you mature a bit.
Even under your curve there has to be a balance. You can slash and slash and cut and cut taxes until it is at like .5% for everyone and collect from more people than ever before, but you still lose money. With your little curve it would appear that the best place to be would be 50%, since it looks to me like the top of the curve is halfway between 0% and 100%. Or it the curve really more of a stupid excuse for cutting taxes that makes absolutely no sense? Let me ask you this, at our highest tax rates ever in the history of the United States, have we ever had an income tax rate over 50%? If not, then it would seem that raising taxes would get us closer to your magical high point not further away.

Strangely enough, no.
I think that's one of the reasons that i'm curious to read future posts from Bushanomics. *nods*
Well, that, this line,
He is defeating the tourists. ...
and
Cutting the deficiet sounds like an interesting hybrid between deficit and deceit, which, given the thread topic, is quite contemporary indeed.
I actually like Bushanomics. You don't have to answer him. He never answers anyone who does. Just sticks in his little schtick now and then. Why not? A little hit of snarkiness never hurt anyone.

Bush claims to be making a better future for "our children and our grandchildren," while raking up a massive debt so that China will virtually own us by the time the next generation comes around. At least we had a budget surplus for the first time since Nixon when Clinton was around and the debt was under control.

If you were as good with fiscal handling as Bush, your house would be foreclosed and all your possessions taken away. Let's do that to Bush.[/rant] Thank you.

What are all you Bush Bashers going to do in a couple of more years? No more Preisdent Bush. Will you throw a temper tantrum and demand he be returned to office, or will you start in on President whoever?

What are all you Bush Bashers going to do in a couple of more years? No more Preisdent Bush. Will you throw a temper tantrum and demand he be returned to office, or will you start in on President whoever?
Nope--we'll start fixing all the shit he's fucked up while in office. Right now, about all we can do is complain and try to slow down the damage. It'll be nice to start doing some fixing instead of simply fighting a holding action.

What are all you Bush Bashers going to do in a couple of more years?

Years? No ... more like 8 months when the Republicans are the legislative minority again. Then perhaps some impeachment proceedings will begin over his lies, his false war, and his illegal wiretapping. That should be a hoot. I might even visit Dick Cheney in prison when he's convicted of ordering Libbey to release classified information.

As for what we'll do when he's gone, same thing ya'll did when Clinton was gone. Cry, "Huzzah!" from the mountaintops.

Then we'll get on to fixing what his administration fucked up. Hopefully it won't take too horribly long.

Years? No ... more like 8 months when the Republicans are the legislative minority again.

Didn't we bet some cookies on this? Two I think. I will thoroughly enjoy eating them (peanutbutter cookies please) with a glass of ice cold milk while watching the Republican Congress on CSPAN. :)

Didn't we bet some cookies on this? Two I think.

Yep :)

Oh just you wait. We made the bet before so many more scandals started rocking the Repubs. A couple more and we may find ourselves with a Independent majority Congress (now wouldn't that be somethin').

Every time a new indictment shows up lately, it's a Republican. People are bound to get that mid-term "throw da bums out" attitude. I like chocolate chips, by the way. ;)

I actually like Bushanomics. You don't have to answer him. He never answers anyone who does. Just sticks in his little schtick now and then. Why not? A little hit of snarkiness never hurt anyone.
Honestly, i'm under that impression as well. Sorry if it appeared otherwise.
That's why i was saying i wouldn't mind hearing more (i don't often say that about anyone)!
I also, for example, really like hearing you clean Deep Kimchi's clock ... and i wouldn't mind hearing more of it!

I was looking over Bush's propesed budget, and noticed that all coporations will pay about $260 billion in income taxes to fund Bush's $2.77 trillion budget. The total for individual income taxes is nearly $1.1 trillion. What is wrong here? Why can't poor exxon, which made roughly $10 billion in profit in a single quarter (a new record), pay just a little more? Corporations barely pay enough to cover the interest on our nearly $8.2 trillion debt. And now we're going to add at least $354 billion to the debt, if Congress is retarded and passes this budget.
When Bush came to power, the US debt was in the neighbourhood of

$5,674,178,209,886.86

And currently the debt is now:

$8,205,718,977,047.85

For a difference of:

$2,523,856,512,483.38 (total increased US debt in 5 years). Yeah that is 2 and one half Trillion bucks.

Which averages an increased debt of $504,771,302,496.676 per year, based on the 5 years that he has been in power.

Bottom line......no end in sight to ever increasing debt, ever increasing trade deficit, ever increasing sell off of US treasuries to China, ever decreasing savings accounts of Americans, ever increasing possibility of war against Iran, ever increasing cost of healthcare insurance, ever increasing possibility of a housing market collapse, ever increasing cost of social security, ever decreasing value of US dollar, ever increased possibility of higher inflation/rates of borrowing, ever increasing possibility of huge stock market correction, ever increasing cost of fuel, ever decreasing non renewable resources, etc, etc, etc....

As ELO so elequently put it in their song: "Hold on tight to your dreams"

Ya never know when the nightmare will begin?

Yep :)

Oh just you wait. We made the bet before so many more scandals started rocking the Repubs. A couple more and we may find ourselves with a Independent majority Congress (now wouldn't that be somethin').

Every time a new indictment shows up lately, it's a Republican. People are bound to get that mid-term "throw da bums out" attitude. I like chocolate chips, by the way. ;)

Wait, why wouldn't the democrats take majority again?
Is it because republicans voters can't stomach democrats (partisan) or will the independents actually be doing something?

Wait, why wouldn't the democrats take majority again?
Is it because republicans voters can't stomach democrats (partisan) or will the independents actually be doing something?

Too many of the Democrats don't offer anything other than criticism of Republicans but suggest nothing in return as an alternative. Also, they often have ideas that simply don't work anymore. Independents, if they get in to office, will at least have something to offer. You don't run as an independent except on the strength of your ideas.

Wait, why wouldn't the democrats take majority again?
Is it because republicans voters can't stomach democrats (partisan) or will the independents actually be doing something?
Yeah, didn't you hear this new party called "The Brown Party" is coming out and should become a major powerplayer. To figure out their platform quickly just take the Green Party and combine it with the Socialist Party. Mix in some Libertarian and you have the Brown Party! They are the next big thing!

Even under your curve there has to be a balance. You can slash and slash and cut and cut taxes until it is at like .5% for everyone and collect from more people than ever before, but you still lose money. With your little curve it would appear that the best place to be would be 50%, since it looks to me like the top of the curve is halfway between 0% and 100%. Or it the curve really more of a stupid excuse for cutting taxes that makes absolutely no sense? Let me ask you this, at our highest tax rates ever in the history of the United States, have we ever had an income tax rate over 50%? If not, then it would seem that raising taxes would get us closer to your magical high point not further away.

The highest marginal tax rate in US history was the 91% top income tax bracket, which the Kennedy tax cut reduced to 70%. The first Reagan tax cuts only reduced the top bracket to 50%, and then the 1986 tax cut reduced it again to 28%.

http://www.house.gov/jec/growth/longterm/longterm.htm

In 1964, the corporate tax rate fell from 52 percent to 48 percent. Also, individual tax rates fell. The top marginal tax rate fell from 90 percent to 70 percent. The lowest marginal tax rate fell from 20 percent to 14 percent.

Wait, why wouldn't the democrats take majority again?

I didn't way they would. I said "Republican minority", I didn't say which party would take majority.

The likely choice is the Dems, but anything's possible.

That is unless you seriously believe people like Tom Delay will actually get re-elected.

Too many of the Democrats don't offer anything other than criticism of Republicans but suggest nothing in return as an alternative. Also, they often have ideas that simply don't work anymore. Independents, if they get in to office, will at least have something to offer. You don't run as an independent except on the strength of your ideas.

When exactly did mortaging our future to China for more money to build houses become a workable option, and when exactly did using Keynsian economics stop becoming viable? I mean, my God man, you justified the use of deficit spending along Keynsian lines in the very first page of this thread.

Honestly, i'm under that impression as well. Sorry if it appeared otherwise.
That's why i was saying i wouldn't mind hearing more (i don't often say that about anyone)!
I also, for example, really like hearing you clean Deep Kimchi's clock ... and i wouldn't mind hearing more of it!
I'm just waiting for him to give me another opening. Mmmmm, unprotected flank...juicy. :D

<snip>
Bottom line......no end in sight to ever increasing debt, ever increasing trade deficit, ever increasing sell off of US treasuries to China, ever decreasing savings accounts of Americans, ever increasing possibility of war against Iran, ever increasing cost of healthcare insurance, ever increasing possibility of a housing market collapse, ever increasing cost of social security, ever decreasing value of US dollar, ever increased possibility of higher inflation/rates of borrowing, ever increasing possibility of huge stock market correction, ever increasing cost of fuel, ever decreasing non renewable resources, etc, etc, etc....

As ELO so elequently put it in their song: "Hold on tight to your dreams"

Ya never know when the nightmare will begin?
This is what I've been on about since Reagan. Rightwingers will dismiss us as nuts, but history proves that ideologues make horrible leaders because their ideas are fundamentally unrealistic. Everything they build collapses on itself in a very short time. Without fail.

Bush and his neocon buddies/masters dream about a new world order that will look and function remarkably like the old feudal system but with more money and plumbing, and they are willing to rip the US apart to achieve it. In their arrogance, they refuse to see how they are putting us and themselves at the mercy of foreign powers. China, for instance, is playing them like an accordian orchestra, with mariachi back-up from Mexico. Mexico gets rid of its poor, scarfs up loads of cash and will eventually regain de facto control over territories taken from it the 19th century. China is using our stupidity to leverage themselves into the position of world's biggest employer and marketplace, with power to dictate the course of business globally. And they are not our friends.

If the neocons are not removed from government soon, they will inevitably cause the US to fall from power spectacularly. We are already being marginalized by Bush's arrogant tone and incompetent policies. After Vladimir Putin announced that he would deal with Hamas, he responded yesterday to US criticism with the following quote: "To hell with you."

Succinct, yes? From Canada to South America, from Europe to Asia, countries that used to turn to us first for business and political leadership are now looking for other people to work with. They care about us less and less -- and we still owe most of them huge amounts of money.

I've been wondering, does having such a huge debt hurt us? I really don't see how it does. Would someone care to enlighten me?

Think about it. Would having a similarly large debt harm you?

It has to be paid back someday.

Do you really think a corporation pays any tax at all? Think about it. Think hard.

Ah, yes, the "corporations just pass it on to consumers" assumption.

Nice neat little argument with no proof at all.

If you free marketeers are right, then the prices of goods should reflect supply and demand -- not just whatever the corporation says -- so, yes, corporations do pay taxes.

Ah, yes, the "corporations just pass it on to consumers" assumption.

Nice neat little argument with no proof at all.

If you free marketeers are right, then the prices of goods should reflect supply and demand -- not just whatever the corporation says -- so, yes, corporations do pay taxes.
I don't see how that's true. Only people can pay taxes. If a tax is levied on a business, it can do one of three things to make the money available. If it is a public company, it can reduce the dividend to it's shareholders. It can also reduce it's net profit. Last, it can raise prices to maintain it's net profit. That's it.

A company doesn't have to pass the additional cost on to consumers, but it's the logical thing to do. The alternatives for a public company are not attractive.

I don't see how that's true. Only people can pay taxes. If a tax is levied on a business, it can do one of three things to make the money available. If it is a public company, it can reduce the dividend to it's shareholders. It can also reduce it's net profit. Last, it can raise prices to maintain it's net profit. That's it.

A company doesn't have to pass the additional cost on to consumers, but it's the logical thing to do. The alternatives for a public company are not attractive.
Didn't you get the memo? Corporations are people too. It's true. Under US law, corporations are considered persons and granted the same legal standing as natural persons. Hence the coining of the term "natural person," to make the difference clear. But in practical terms, there is no difference. Except that, unlike "natural persons," corporations are not always required to follow the law -- or pay their taxes. Not because it's impossible -- just because, all things being equal, they are more equal than us.

Corporations have been people for about 100 years now.

And currently the debt is now:

$8,205,718,977,047.85


It's officially past 8.2 trillion? Damn, you're right.

Yeah, didn't you hear this new party called "The Brown Party" is coming out and should become a major powerplayer. To figure out their platform quickly just take the Green Party and combine it with the Socialist Party. Mix in some Libertarian and you have the Brown Party! They are the next big thing!

Gross!! ...the brown party...
Smells like someone shit his pants coming up with that one...
Honestly, you can't be serious, mixing socialism with Libertarianism is like mixing acid and base... It just dont work.

Actually I thought it was a bit closer to 9 trillion.

Too many of the Democrats don't offer anything other than criticism of Republicans but suggest nothing in return as an alternative. Also, they often have ideas that simply don't work anymore.
That is SUCH a tired, overused bullsh*t rightwing radio edit.