The US, UN & Iraq III

Careful, PDiddie, you are beginning to sound as cynical as the rest of us.

PDid, The author of that article still doesn't get it: We didn't gain "anything." c.i.

If you think that's cynical, take a look at this: http://www.counterpunch.org/vest05282003.html

And frankly, Vest is right.

Is it posible that Iran doesn't feel quite so threatened by us as they might have been six months ago?

Are we beginning to look like a paper tiger? After all, there seems to be general agreement that we do not have enough troops in Iraq to display the necessary force to bring order to those we liberated, who were so anxiously awaiting our arrival. Now, how would we have enough manpower to keep order in Iraq, while sending in forces to Iran, maybe Syria, maybe more to North Korea?

Is this a diabolical scheme on the part of the Bush administration to solve the job problem? But then what would they do about child care since all the mothers would have to go to work?

mama, That's an idea not lost on GWBush and his cronies; they have continued to promise more jobs, while over 60,000 people lose their jobs every month. When this tax cut doesn't pan out as they promised; watch out! Bush has 19 more months to screw up our country; what more can he do? c.i.

Kara - In order for me to help you here, you're going to have to abandon the notion that lowering marginal rates automatically means less money flowing into government coffers. Take a look at the Reagan tax cut, and you will see that tax revenues DOUBLED after the tax cut. If the tax cuts spur growth and the economy grows, the feds end up taking a slightly smaller chunk of a larger pool of money.

I realize that this is anathema to pro-tax liberals, but it is simple economics. Lower the opportunity cost of any activity and more people will do it. Lower the opportunity cost of doing business in the US--which is what cutting taxes does--and you encourage people to do more business. More business = increased tax revenues.

Of course, I realize that most people in here refuse to believe a word of this, but that's okay. The Earth orbited the sun long before most men acknowledged the fact.

Scrat, Your theory makes sense if GWBush's tax cuts will spur economic growth. There's a BIG HOLE in your theory; $32 billion dollars today in tax cuts in a 10 trillion dollar economy is barely gas passing. Most of the $32 billion goes to the wealthy, and they will not spend it; it'll go into their already huge nest egg in their banks or investments (they don't need the extra cash, and they buy whatever they want before the tax break). If you haven't noticed yet, companies are laying off by the thousands - still. The factories have what is termed "over capacity," because people aren't spending money they don't have. Haven't you noticed more SALES in the stores of late? Car and appliance sales are down. Businesses do not continue to increase capacity at the same time they are laying off workers. The p/e ratios of the stock market is in the mid-twenties; too high to produce profit for shares owned. Most people are in hawk up to their eyeballs, and real estate is now "over-valued." Things don't look too good; actually they look real bad. This tax cut is being put on the backs of future workers, current social services, and the baby-boomers who better not rely on social security or medicare. c.i.

And, of course, scrat, most of us here are still aware of what Reagonomics accomplished. There is no such thing as trickle-down in real life: it is only in the minds of wishful thinkers.

Too, one might say that the Reagan economics helped defeat George Bush. They certainly contributed to the very real downturn in our economy, which led to the lection (twice) of Clinton, who understood economics.

Scrat says:

"Lower the opportunity cost of doing business in the US--which is what cutting taxes does--and you encourage people to do more business. More business = increased tax revenues."

Isn't that a bit simplistic? Our trade deficits continue - we buy more than we sell. The dollar is weaker, which should help us theoretically but doesn't since so much does depend on the global economy. And so far the tax cuts haven't provided any incentive to grow inventories, build more, create jobs. When jobs are down, income vanishes. One of the things that has kept consumers spending has been the extremely low mortgage rates, which has allowed second and third mortgages, and has put some money into the hands of the consumer. But rates are about as low as they can get; mortgages are reaching a level, and incomes now are actually lower than they were a few years ago. So what, exactly, does that few hundred dollars mean in terms of increased business? And further, if what you suggest were true, how do you explain the continuing loss of roughly 67,000 - 70,000 jobs a month? Has the tax cut lowered the cost of doing business, and given us increased tax revenues?

Show me. I've seen a lot of figures showing otherwise. Now please show me some proof of what you've said, and how the last tax cut accomplished this, and what it accomplished. And don't you find it interesting, too, that almost every poll taken showed that the overwhelming majority of Americans were not in favor of the tax cut, but in favor of reducing the deficit, shoring up Social security and medicare? Including polls run by Fox news.

See Kara, I told you they wouldn't believe it.

b
Scrat, Now factor in ongoing wars in two countries, a deficit economy, deteriorating infrastructure, rising fuel cost, the loss of revenue from over two million unemployed, states that are broke ...... hell, just do those

Re: b

ROFLMFAO! I love it! "A deficit economy..." That, in and of itself is worth its weight in gold, but then you tell us that fuel prices are rising when they are falling, treat transitive unemployment as if it is permanent and then pretend that a federal tax cut will somehow hurt those states that are doing a lousy job of managing their budgets. (Isn't that their job, not the feds?)



Thanks so much for sending me to bed with a good belly-laugh!

You're absolutely right, scrat. Employment is rising to new high levels, consumer spending and confidence are at all time highs, states should mind what they say and keep out of Washington's business (can't wait to see how all those governors and mayors handle the local elections), we now stand at 100% highs in the education of our children and the standing of that education, and how could we think of a monthly job loss of 70,000 jobs and an estimated 25-month total of well over 2 million jobs as anything but transitory?

Why, we're having the best year in our history!

Who wants the NUTS? Who even wants to handle the NUTS?

A gently rolling sea. No one would know that a minute earlier the ship had gone under, but for the bubble bursting to the surface and with it, Scrat's insistence "This is oxygen around me!"

Here lies the good ship lollipop
sank with hand on board

c
Good weapons are instruments of fear; all creatures hate them.
Therefore followers of Tao never use them.
The wise man prefers the left.
The man of war prefers the right.

Weapons are instruments of fear; they are not a wise man's tools.
He uses them only when he has no choice.
Peace and quiet are dear to his heart,
And victory no cause for rejoicing.
If you rejoice in victory, then you delight in killing;
If you delight in killing, you cannot fulfill yourself.

On happy occasions precedence is given to the left,
On sad occasions to the right.
In the army the general stands on the left,
The commander in chief on the right.
That means that war is conducted like a funeral.
When many people are being killed,
They should be mourned in heartfelt sorrow.
That is why a victory must be observed like a funeral.

c
US 'faces future of chronic deficits'
By Peronet Despeignes in Washington
Published: May 28 2003 21:57 | Last Updated: May 29 2003 1:16

The Bush administration has shelved a report commissioned by the Treasury that shows the US currently faces a future of chronic federal budget deficits totalling at least $44,200bn in current US dollars.

The study, the most comprehensive assessment of how the US government is at risk of being overwhelmed by the "baby boom" generation's future healthcare and retirement costs, was commissioned by then-Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill.

But the Bush administration chose to keep the findings out of the annual budget report for fiscal year 2004, published in February, as the White House campaigned for a tax-cut package that critics claim will expand future deficits.

The study asserts that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts or a painful mix of both are unavoidable if the US is to meet benefit promises to future generations. It estimates that closing the gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 per cent across-the-board income tax increase.

The study was being circulated as an independent working paper among Washington think-tanks as President George W. Bush on Wednesday signed into law a 10-year, $350bn tax-cut package he welcomed as a victory for hard-working Americans and the economy.

The analysis was spearheaded by Kent Smetters, then-Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy, and Jagdessh Gokhale, then a consultant to the Treasury. Mr Gokhale, now an economist for the Cleveland Federal Reserve, said: "When we were conducting the study, my impression was that it was slated to appear [in the Budget]. At some point, the momentum builds and you think everything is a go, and then the decision came down that we weren't part of the prospective budget."

Mr O'Neill, who was fired last December, refused to comment.

The study's analysis of future deficits dwarfs previous estimates of the financial challenge facing Washington. It is roughly equivalent to 10 times the publicly held national debt, four years of US economic output or more than 94 per cent of all US household assets. Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman, last week bemoaned what he called Washington's "deafening" silence about the future crunch.





Click me

Scroll Scrat.

Scrat, I'm just listening. Economics is a fascinating subject to me, but each "expert" I meet has a different theory. Some "experts" are diametrically opposed to each other. How can there be so many truths? And how can known figures be interpreted in totally different ways by different people?

I read in the NYTimes this morning that the child credit was excised from the tax bill for one certain group at the last minute to make it conform to the 350B cap. That group was those who earn between $10,000 and $25,000 a year. The House and the Senate each blame the other for this indefensible act.

Gelisgesti, did you write that piece?

It was excellent. I have commented before that, instead of his triumphal strut on board the aircraft carrier, Bush should have been video'd at his desk, with his head bowed, sorrowing over lives lost, crying out to his god and to this country to forgive him for what he had done.

f
Kara, no .... it's from the Tao ..... ancient wisdom for today ....

Think we will ever learn to listen?


http://www.daily-tao.com/