My inflammatory comment on that chart was this:
So it turns out the National Debt goes down with Democractic presidents in office (cleaning up the mess created by the partying with public money of the GOP) and the National Debt goes UP with GOP presidents in office (giving tax dollars to the rich and starting wars to put money in the pockets of Defense contractors and sacrificing the lives of the poor who inevitably make up a large chunk of enlisted personnel). Gee whiz?!?! So if you want Fiscal Responsibility, who would you vote for?
This drew a lot of comments.
Responder 1) Hmmmm...last time I checked it was the Congress, specifically the House, that set budgets, an not the President. When did I miss the memo that changed that clause in the Constitution?
My response: The President has nothing to do with fiscal or economic policy? Ok, then I never want to hear you ever, ever, ever, give credit or blame to the President for the economy or taxation. Give me a break. (Yes, I am familiar with Article I of the Constitution. Just because the President doesn't write, introduce, and vote on the bill becoming a law in Congress (yes, starting in the House for budgetary matters) does not mean he/she takes no part.)
Responder 2) Biased image is biased. Try this one - Where it not only shows the amount spent, but charts it against our GDP.
http://upload.wikimedia.or
My response: I'll give you Ike from 1952-1960; otherwise, 1961-1968 (JFK & LBJ) decrease; 1968-1981 (nixon, ford, carter) slight decrease; 1981-1992 (Saint Reagan & Bush I) Set us back to 1956; 1992-2000 (Clinton) Sharp Decrease; 2000-2008 (Bush II) Increase;
So yeah, thanks. Your chart proves the same point!
Responder 2) Let's bring a little Presbo into the mix - I'm guessing the chart you posted wasn't tall enough to fit his figures....
http://www.heritage.org/Re
My response: I'm guessing you're not going to consider the last 18 months (a huge amount of time as opposed to considering the last 60 years) as spending money to dig out of the mess caused by the previous administration.
I do not dispute that a large amount of spending and a huge increase in the national debt has occurred in the last 18 months. I do dispute placing blame for that on the current administration. I believe in Keynesian economics and that public spending can fill the void caused by a lack of private spending to prevent further erosions in GDP. While preventing declines is never as easy to accept, it certainly happens. I believe we would have seen 16-20% Unemployment and continuing GDP losses without governmental intervention.
If you want to avoid bias (and biased charts), try to avoid the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with a longstanding agenda to ensure tax breaks for the rich.
Additional response from me: Also, that article was published in March, 2009, when Obama had been in office for less than 60 days. I'm sure it was able to be a complete and accurate analysis of everything that could be forecasted after 60 days. Oh wait, it claims to forecast things for a 10-year window while simultaneously slamming Obama for using 10-year forecasts. Whatever.
I think it's safe to say things in the 16 months since that article have changed a bit. I think it's also safe to say that things will change in the next few years as well.
Responder 2) At his point I'm just looking forward to change in November.
My additional response: There's nothing quite like seeing so many Middle Class people work sooooo hard to ensure tax cuts for the Rich. I think that's the GOP slogan.
If you won't work in your own self-interest, work in the interest of those less fortunate than you. Working in the interest of those more fortunate than you is just plain stupid. My goodness, at least vote for someone who pretends to be in support of your interests. These Tea Party people and GOP don't even pretend to be out to help you.
One last point on the debt topic. The vast majority of the debt increases is due to the Baby Boomers leaving the work force and draining the social security and medicare funds. Without changes to those programs, nothing will change in the general debt situation.
Responder 2) Less fortunate? More fortunate? What has luck got to do with it?
I'm offended that you seem to think that I'm better off than some welfare mom in a trailer park because I'm lucky and she's not. I'm in the position I'm in because of the choices I made, and ditto for her. I chose to work hard, strive for promotion, and use my money wisely. Ms Hypothetical is in hers position because she chose to have a child out of wedlock, chose not to work, and chose to spend her govt provided income on beer and smokes and lottery tikets.
I'm not here to worry about the poor. I'm here to worry about limiting the amount of money the federal government takes from me at gunpoint to redistribute to all the deadbeats living off the government teats.
My Response: Did you have any choice over being born in a stable middle class household in a nice suburb with good health and gifted level intelligence? If you had screwed that up, I would hold it against you.
Also, I wasn't counting fortunate in terms of luck, I meant it in terms of results.
Even if you don't wish to go there, at least look out for YOURSELF.
In addition, your attitude seems to suggest that you feel all taxes are bad and that all governmental spending is bad. Good luck building a society of more than one person without some sort of cooperative actions. This, by the way, is why Ayn Rand's Objectivism and most forms of Libertarianism are fundamentally flawed. They only work on paper with perfect people. In a society of robots, it just might work as long as no robot ever varied in performance.
If you come down off of that high horse, you might see that we are humans, capable of large variances in performance and large variances in results from the same efforts. I suggest to you that not everyone has a low economic status due to their failings and of course that not everyone with a high economic status has "achieved it" through their own merit.
Sorry, it's not that simple, and you are definitely smart enough to know better than that.
Responder 2) Taxes as a whole I have no problem with. Although, Id prefer a consumption tax over an income tax. My tax money being used as handouts to the welfare state to buy votes is a big problem in my eyes.
And yes, there are exceptions to every rule.
Sorry if I come across as cranky and disjointed. Dr put me on new meds - got me all kinds of testy and light-headed. ;)
I'm working on the political defition I always hear - anyone who makes over $250k is "rich".
Which includes... what... 80% of small business owners? Who aren't spending money or expanding or hiring because they are looking ahead to how badly the upcoming healthcare and economic reform legislation is going to screw them.
Which includes... what... 80% of small business owners? Who aren't spending money or expanding or hiring because they are looking ahead to how badly the upcoming healthcare and economic reform legislation is going to screw them.
My response: I'm talking dollars. I'm of the opinion that many people are lazy, regardless of income and net worth, and that many people are hard-working, regardless of income and net worth.
$250k/year actually targets just 3% of the population.
Please let me know where you get the 80% of business owners figure. If this were true, I would jump into business ownership ASAP. The reality is that most business owners report an Adjusted Gross Income (for themselves because we are talking about individuals) far less than $250k/year. This is for many reasons. 1) Most businesses just don't make that much money. 2) Those that do hire accountants to reduce their AGI so they can pay lower taxes. This is made possible because the government actively uses tax policy to assist small business owners. In fact, Congress passes a bill last week to put $50 Billion to small business owners to encourage job growth. 3) Most revenue is poured back into the business to generate growth. At the very least, it is often kept in company name. Often times, small business owners funnel almost all of their income and expenses through the company in company name and report very little personal income.
The notion that taxing those reporting more than $250k/year income will stifle job growth is disingenuous. In addition, even if they truly believed that legislation would hurt them down the road, wouldn't they want to do things now to make money before the changes went into effect? I'm in a right-to-work state. Here, if they hired workers and then later discovered that it wasn't profitable, they could just fire them or lay them off. That's not happening, so I find your Rush Limbaugh provided explanation flimsy at best.
The real issue is that consumers are not spending because there is no real inflation-adjusted wage growth in this country, and there hasn't been for 20 years. Instead, consumers used low-interest credit to supplement their lack of wage increases. This lack of wage increases occurred during a huge boom in worker productivity. So where did the money go? To the top 3% of incomes in this country.
So yeah, I am okay with restoring their taxes to where they were during the prosperous Clinton years and keeping tax rates for the 97% of us who are actually suffering at the lowest rates ever.
