Skip to comments.
Conservatives Should Support the President Now and in November Becauseā¦
Jewish World Review, January ^
| January 13, 2004
| Martha Zoller
Posted on 01/13/2004 1:38:02 PM PST by quidnunc
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680, 681-700, 701-720, 721-738 next last
To: Southack
That's a fine theorem, and there is much truth to it, but there is not so much truth to it that it is an economic Law Hmmm... wait a sec, let me check that degree I have on the wall. Yup, it says economics right on it. I though I managed to squeeze in a few eco classes between basket weaving and film aesthetics. Yes you could sell land to pay it off, but absent the debt you would have surplus funds. Money is fungible, so we could go through the semantics but the debt represents a claim of future assets. If you pass the debt onto your kids you are placing a claim on their assets any which way you look at it. As for the printing press argument, inflation is one way a govt can tax. It's been done before and will be done again. Defaulting would cause a bank crisis in the US that would harm economic output so the tax would come in the form of a recession / depression. Quite frankly, that is the stupidest thing to suggest doing to our kids.
681
posted on
01/14/2004 9:24:31 PM PST
by
Nanodik
(Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
To: Texasforever
Was there a recent tax increase I missed? Yeah, you seem to have been out of the loop for some time now. To catch you up, ponder the following equation: deficits = deferred taxes
682
posted on
01/14/2004 9:27:10 PM PST
by
Nanodik
(Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
To: Nanodik
"Quite frankly, that is the stupidest thing to suggest doing to our kids."
Sadly, you've missed my point again. I did NOT advocate defaulting on our debt. I merely listed several ways in which a deficit could be handled *without* raising taxes, thereby supporting my contention that deficits do not have to equal higher taxes...with courteous tangible examples rather than the more common empty rhetoric of late.
683
posted on
01/14/2004 9:28:19 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Southack
. $39.5 Billion per year for each of ten years Yeah, those OMB estimates are always dead-on. You can count on it.
684
posted on
01/14/2004 9:28:36 PM PST
by
Nanodik
(Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
To: Southack
handled *without* raising taxes Notice I said deficits = deferred taxes not deficits = raised taxes. If you owed me money and I said you did not have to pay me, instead I'll just take your car in payment, would you argue that you got away without paying me?
685
posted on
01/14/2004 9:32:31 PM PST
by
Nanodik
(Libertarian, Ex-Canadian)
To: Nanodik
![](http://bulldogbulletin.lhhosting.com/images/USA-09.gif)
The OMB is hardly the issue. What matters is what Congress and the President have legally *authorized* in spending...which is $39.5 Billion per year for each of the next ten years (i.e. $10 per American per month). Any changes to that level of spending would require *new*, additional legislation...legislation that would have an uphill fight, by the way.
686
posted on
01/14/2004 9:33:04 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Nanodik
Tell me, you have a very strong opinion that the President has increased the size of Government.
Surely you must have facts to back up these accusations.
Perhaps you could enlighten us on some of these programs, expenses etc...that the President has increased.
Bear in mind however, we only want actual facts and figures that you have access to.
Your usual assumptions and generalizations are no substitute for the true figures in this case.
Then perhaps you could educate us as to just how the Fiscal Legislative Budget process works and how it relates to the GDP as well as the economic index. Then we would like you to illustrate point by point, just where the President has failed in all respects, but only substantiated with factual details based upon the above criteria.
Do you think you are well enough informed to accept this challenge?
687
posted on
01/14/2004 9:35:49 PM PST
by
PSYCHO-FREEP
(HOW ABOUT rooting for our side for a change, you Liberalterian Morons!)
To: Nanodik
"Notice I said deficits = deferred taxes not deficits = raised taxes."
So you did. Point taken.
And for the most part you are correct, however, there are *technical* exceptions which, though hardly popular, permit exceptions to your "rule" above (e.g. defaulting on debt, leasing unused federal land, running printing presses, etc.).
Thus deficits do not have to equate to deferred taxes. Those who loaned money to Iraq back in the 1990's are certainly learning that lesson today...
688
posted on
01/14/2004 9:36:40 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: Nanodik
To catch you up, ponder the following equation: deficits = deferred taxes Ponder this , economic growth based on low taxes leads to deficit reduction/elimination. That is the difference between US economic theory and Canadian economic theory. I am still wondering what made you leave Canada because you are a fish out of water here in the United States.
To: Doninnj
Since your comment added nothing to the dialog, you just wasted bandwidth. Dispute what he wrote if you can.
690
posted on
01/14/2004 9:45:03 PM PST
by
Badray
To: Texasforever
Most informed people know that the deficit has increased since the economic "Bubble" burst in 1999.
The reduced deficit was the result of the runaway economy of the '90's.
Since we have been slowly coming out of a serious recession, as well as fighting a war, the deficit will be higher. This has very little to do with the President's economic policy. If fact, because the President stimulated the economy by cutting taxes, the actual revenue taken in by the treasury has lessened the severity of the deficit and will improve it as the economy grows stronger.
Our Canadian friend has no knowledge of how our system works. hopefully he can learn to listen instead of criticizing something he knows very little about.
691
posted on
01/14/2004 9:49:38 PM PST
by
PSYCHO-FREEP
(HOW ABOUT rooting for our side for a change, you Liberalterian Morons!)
To: Southack
Here is the way I look at today's deficit. When Bush was elected there was a projected "surplus" of 6 trillion dollars at the end of 10 years. That projection was distorted by the revenue coming in from the vaporware boom that went completely bust. So, the "surplus" wasn't there anyway. However, Bush used that projection to enact a corresponding 10 year tax cut of approx. the same 6 trillion dollars and in the last 3 years that has been REAL dollars coming back to the private sector and he is about to propose his 4th tax cut in the SOTU address. Bush is starving the beast. The portion of the deficit attributed to the Iraq is a finite expense since we will not occupy the country for any long period of time. With the exception of the Medicare bill the only non-military expenditures directly controlled by Bush is in his discretionary budget. The Education bill was peanuts compared to the expenditures for Social Security and defense. The Social Security costs cannot be sustained no matter what happens with taxes or the economy. SS will require some form of both privatization and means testing in order to remain viable.
To: PSYCHO-FREEP
I agree see my post right after yours.
To: Texasforever
![](http://bulldogbulletin.lhhosting.com/images/USA-09.gif)
Indeed, we are starving the beast, but that's not how our 3rd Party friends are going to portray our expanding government.
694
posted on
01/14/2004 9:58:19 PM PST
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: PSYCHO-FREEP
Our Canadian friend has no knowledge of how our system works. hopefully he can learn to listen instead of criticizing something he knows very little about. He says he is now a citizen of the US and is here to save us from ourselves though I have not seen him disagree with his former country's policies.
To: Texasforever
I agree with you on the SS issue.
The President's plan for privatization of SS is brilliant, much like anyone who invests a portion of their pre-tax income. (401K)
Instead of us only recovering dollar for dollar what we paid in, we have the opportunity to increase it.
Military expenses will also decrease because Clinton gutted them so badly, the initial cost to restore our forces, has been abnormal but will also stabilize eventually. (Don't forget that with Libya, N. Korea, Syria, etc.. and very soon, Iran becoming less of a problem, the military will be a decreasing expense.
696
posted on
01/14/2004 10:07:34 PM PST
by
PSYCHO-FREEP
(HOW ABOUT rooting for our side for a change, you Liberalterian Morons!)
To: PSYCHO-FREEP
Great points!
To: Texasforever
Our Canadian friend apparently left this thread.
Our logical thought supported by fact must have been to much for his inventive supposition, supported by hear-say.
698
posted on
01/14/2004 10:16:49 PM PST
by
PSYCHO-FREEP
(HOW ABOUT rooting for our side for a change, you Liberalterian Morons!)
To: PSYCHO-FREEP
He appears conflicted in what he actually believes. But I won't talk behind his back anymore. Nice talking to you though.
To: Nanodik
Yeah, socialist typically hate those who stand for individual freedom.That would be a really cute response, except that I'm not a socialist. And by the way, if you think you stand for freedom, why are you busting your ass to get a Democrat elected president?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680, 681-700, 701-720, 721-738 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson