|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 443 |
Originally posted by Nate S:
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Originally posted by Nate S:
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
And one thing I do know, to make money you gotta spend money. To get economy back on track they have to spend money on some things and pay this stuff back after a while
If you know any basic economics, you know that when you increase taxes and overall spending at the same time, it provides a boost to the economy in the short run, but causes a depression in the long run. Bush did exactly this. He lowered taxes and then spent a shitload of money on the war. Now all we have to do is wait for the depression.
Actually, it's the opposite is it not?
no, it isnt.
Well, in all fairness, not the opposite, but different. If you increase taxes, meaning more gov't spending and more wealth redistribution, and increase spending, when you've got less money to spend because of increased taxes, that means more deficit spending, whether by the gov't or individually. That can and will cause a depression if we don't grab ahold of the fiscal irresponsibility and get back into positive numbers. Sooner or later the bubble will burst.
What I meant in regard to opposite was, that decreasing taxes, which increases personal wealth, will benefit the economy long term. Increasing taxes never benefits any economy in the long term. This is why we've got to be very careful about deficit spending and the existing federal debt, because if we have to raise taxes considerably at some point in the future to pay for debt, it will negatively affect our economy for a much longer period of time than if we take it seriously now. It's like with heart disease, even if you get healthy later in life, but your arteries are already clogged and damaged, you still have heart disease, and you still need treatment, even if you're doing everything right from that point forward, and it takes a LONG time to reverse heart disease without surgery, though it can be done over a period of years of strict diet and exercise, but life sure sucks while you're getting better. Unfortunately, there's no magic surgery for debt problems, because the federal gov't can't go bankrupt without serious consequences to the world.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,621
Redneck Troll
|
|
Redneck Troll
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,621 |
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
I just figure that I would rather control my own money then let liberals make up programs to give it all away.
Ahhhh, the one program from the republicans I can agree with.
http://www.bnmotorsports.com
"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my CEG brothers. And you will know I am the Moderator when I lay my vengeance upon you."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by bnoon:
Originally posted by DemonSVT:
I just figure that I would rather control my own money then let liberals make up programs to give it all away.
Ahhhh, the one program from the republicans I can agree with.
Iowa went BUSH... 
neener neener...
I'm still laughing over that one...
So's the wife. She's from Iowa.
I'm from Minnesota and that's a Democrat stronghold still.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,489 |
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Originally posted by Nate S:
Originally posted by cjbaldw:
Originally posted by Nate S:
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
And one thing I do know, to make money you gotta spend money. To get economy back on track they have to spend money on some things and pay this stuff back after a while
If you know any basic economics, you know that when you increase taxes and overall spending at the same time, it provides a boost to the economy in the short run, but causes a depression in the long run. Bush did exactly this. He lowered taxes and then spent a shitload of money on the war. Now all we have to do is wait for the depression.
Actually, it's the opposite is it not?
no, it isnt.
Well, in all fairness, not the opposite, but different. If you increase taxes, meaning more gov't spending and more wealth redistribution, and increase spending, when you've got less money to spend because of increased taxes, that means more deficit spending, whether by the gov't or individually. That can and will cause a depression if we don't grab ahold of the fiscal irresponsibility and get back into positive numbers. Sooner or later the bubble will burst.
What I meant in regard to opposite was, that decreasing taxes, which increases personal wealth, will benefit the economy long term. Increasing taxes never benefits any economy in the long term. This is why we've got to be very careful about deficit spending and the existing federal debt, because if we have to raise taxes considerably at some point in the future to pay for debt, it will negatively affect our economy for a much longer period of time than if we take it seriously now. It's like with heart disease, even if you get healthy later in life, but your arteries are already clogged and damaged, you still have heart disease, and you still need treatment, even if you're doing everything right from that point forward, and it takes a LONG time to reverse heart disease without surgery, though it can be done over a period of years of strict diet and exercise, but life sure sucks while you're getting better. Unfortunately, there's no magic surgery for debt problems, because the federal gov't can't go bankrupt without serious consequences to the world.
we hold slightly different economic positions, but yeah, youre exactly right in your respect. however, this is why im extremely worried right now...and the next 4 years will show how well (or badly, for that matter) bush's economic plan worked.
1998 T-Red CSVT 3.0L
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753 |
Originally posted by EternalOne:
Perhaps he missed the part about how discretionary spending was actually lowered during Bush's term in office, and that the spending actually went towards National Security initiatives, such as creating the Dept of Homeland Security and fighting the War on Terror. I just love one-sided facts.
E1
In case you didn't learn enough from the previous posts then here is a little more reading.
"Spending has increased twice as fast under President Bush as it did under President Clinton. From 2001 to 2003 total spending grew by 16 percent. Certainly the terror attacks of 9/11 placed additional demands on spending for homeland security, a strong defense, and rebuilding New York. However, this accounts for less than half of the new spending that has occurred since 9/11 ."
"Presidents Roosevelt and Truman signed budgets during World War II and the Korean War which actually decreased non-defense spending. However, we saw no such balancing of our fiscal checkbook after 9/11. Instead we saw a spending spree in Washington where budgets written by Congress and signed by the President during the War on Terror actually grew non-defense spending by 11 percent during this period."
the link:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm398.cfm
Dueling Duratecs
'95 SE V6 MTX 0 Mods
'04 Mazda6 S Wagon
'03 Kawasaki Z1000
But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 223
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 223 |
Originally posted by mikey boy:
Originally posted by svt4stv:
here we go again....  this is like one big thread that has been broken up into several smaller threads.
we need a break from the common interests forum again. 
I second that 
98 CSVT Black/Blue #135 of 6535
Formerly known as "SVTbullet"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 706 |
Searching for discretionary spending and quoting the first article that comes up doesn't count as proof in my book. After hearing a few claims from people on TV (prior to the election) I ran around the White House budget website, and calc'd out some numbers. Then I found out some very interesting information, such as the Dept of Homeland Security actually gets most of its money by funneling through different agencies! This artifically inflates their numbers. So, here's a good breakdown of the numbers, now granted not everything is "peachy", but its definately NOT quite what the left was stating, either. http://www.deadparrots.net/archives/economics/0410bushs_record_on_discretionary_spending.htmlE1
1999 Cougar - Supercharged 3L
1992 Talon TSi - AWD Turbo
1992 Eclipse GSX - AWD Turbo
|
|
|
|
|
