1
   

$318 Billion Deal Is Set in Congress for Cutting Taxes

 
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2003 02:13 pm
It can. We could start by making the Pentagon pay back the unaccounted-for trillions -- that sure would help.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2003 02:16 pm
You missed the point I was making, Scrat. Why did they spike the report that showed 44 trillion dollars in deficit spending?

Oh, never mind; I already know why. Do you?
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2003 02:24 pm
PD - No, I don't know why, and I'm quite sure you don't know why either. I recognize that you think you know why--and that your conviction on that point is born from your bias, not from any information to which you are privy.

I can think of a couple of reasons why they might have shelved the report. The one you espouse is among them, and a strong contender, but that doesn't mean either of us "knows" that's the reason. Right off the top of my head I would ask why anyone would create a report that starts with the premise that the feds are going to pay for the health care and retirement of all baby boomers. That's a report that (A) anyone can tell you will show it can't be done, and (B) assumes as its basis something that should be (is?) a point of hot debate, not a "given".

So here we are... I see at least two reasons why they might shelve this report, and also entertain the possibility that the report that it was shelved is inaccurate. You, on the other hand, assume the report is gospel and that you know without question what actions were taken and the reasons for taking them.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2003 04:15 pm
scroll scrat. he's got the nuts.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2003 04:20 pm
And Snow, of course, did a complete reversal of the stands he took on this just a few months before being hired by the WH. And Mitch Daniels left. And we have yet to hear about the costs of the Iraqi peace mission.

And Alan Greenspan - the guru - what kinds of noises was he making about deficits being bad for the economy? Anybody got a wheelbarrow for the ride?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2003 04:38 pm
Well, since Mr. Scrat say it cain't be done, I'm writing to the SSA and tellin' 'em I ain't puttin' no more money into their Ponzi scheme.

"The full faith and credit of the Newnited States Gov'ment" just crapped out.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2003 04:48 pm
Posted in another spot, thought I'd post it here:

Quote:



Read the full article, it shows what kinda scrooges and cutthroats the Right really are when it comes to the lower class!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2003 04:59 pm
"lower class" in more ways than one! c.i.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2003 09:10 pm
I'm scrolling Scrat, Mamajuana. But disagree with you. I don't think he DOES have nuts.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2003 09:35 pm
Oooh, what you said, tartarin. But I think a lot of us have known that since abuzz. Some do, some don't.

Re the child credit in low-income families part of the tax cut: do you think some moderate republicans got blind-sided?
0 Replies
 
Jim
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2003 09:42 pm
Can I ask an engineer's question in the debate?

What tax rate would be needed to cover the estimated 44 trillion dollar deficit? Would even a 100% tax rate cover it?

If a 100% tax rate would not cover it, then it's time to re-evaluate future government programs and obligations.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2003 10:13 pm
Jim, Very simply put, this country's GNP is 10 trillion dollars. That means that future generations will continue to pay interest on the debt for the foreseeable future - including your children and their chlldren - for many generations henceforth. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 May, 2003 11:15 pm
PD - Do you actually disagree--do you think it can be done? Care to tell how? If you actually disagree with my assertion that paying for the health care and retirement of every member of the baby boom generation is not possible without bankrupting government, I'd love to read your explanation of how you would make it work.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2003 01:14 am
Rather than go there, Scrat (I believe it can and should be done, just so you know, and taxes would have to go up, waaaay up, especially on people like me--and just suspicioning here--you) let's get back to something our new friend McGentrix posited in another thread (without the snarkiness)--what the tax cut could buy.

Here's an itemized list of things the tax cut might have paid for. They are diverse, pressing, some would say essential -- not just to low-income Americans, but to many of us who, having had a choice, might have directed the billions elsewhere...

Tax-cut total: $330 billion

Amount needed to provide health insurance for all 9.2 million currently uninsured children for one year: $13 billion

Amount needed to provide health insurance for all 41.2 million uninsured Americans, including children, for one year: $98 billion

Amount needed to close state budget gaps across the country: $78 billion

Amount needed to hire an additional 100,000 teachers to reduce class size, provide grants to repair 6,000 schools and assist with new-school construction, and provide additional math and reading help for over 9 million eligible low-income students: $300 billion

Amount needed to end homelessness for chronically homeless people within 10 years: $1.3 billion per year to create and sustain 150,000 units of permanent supportive housing

Amount needed by the Environmental Protection Agency to complete cleanups at high-priority toxic waste sites through the Superfund program: $92 million

Cost of Head Start for all 1.8 million children, up to 5 years old, who currently need but don't receive it: $25 billion

Cost of continuing to provide grants to potentially jeopardized regional poison control centers and maintain a toll-free poison information phone number between 2005 and 2009: $142 million

Cost of USDA testing of 12,500 cattle samples for mad cow disease, in addition to homeland security measures such as physical security upgrades at lab facilities and background investigation of workers: $21.7 million

Budgeted cost of continuing to enable states to meet energy emergencies due to extremes in temperature, either during severe cold weather in the winter or sustained heat waves in the summer: $1.7 billion

Cost of measures to improve food safety in 2003, including hiring additional FDA inspectors, and developing new ways for federal inspectors to detect food-borne illnesses in meat and poultry and determine the source of contamination: $101 million

Estimated homeland security costs for full support of state and local emergency personnel in their efforts to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism for three years: $12 billion

Cost of providing housing assistance nationwide for victims of domestic violence from 2004 through 2008: $100 million

Cost of hiring 100 new public-school teachers: $3.125 million

Cost of hiring 100 state child-care workers: $2.08 million

Cost of fully immunizing 100 children against preventable diseases: $64,433

Price of 250,000 new fire trucks: $56.2 billion

Identified funding needs for community-based services in the care and treatment of HIV/AIDS in 2002: $2 billion

Identified funding needs for HIV prevention and surveillance prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: $1 billion

Identified funding needs for HIV/AIDS research at the National Institutes of Health: $2.9 billion

Estimated cost of funding Older Americans Act programs for seniors -- such as transportation, delivered meals and elder abuse prevention -- for 10 years: $39 billion

Cost of providing needed assistive technology and durable medical equipment for 1 million individuals with disabilities for 10 years: $39 billion

Cost of compensating federal employees called to active duty in the uniformed services or National Guard for the difference between their civilian and military pay: $89 million over the 2004-2008 period

Yearly cost of direct treatment for mental illness in both the private and public sectors in the U.S.: $92 billion

Estimated cost of spending for countermeasures against smallpox, anthrax, botulinum toxin, plague and Ebola under Project BioShield: $5.6 billion between 2004 and 2013

Cost of 60 million doses of an improved smallpox vaccine: $900 million

Annual cost of providing services to foster children, including educational assistance, job placement, health services and room and board: $200 million

Amount needed to establish a National Housing Trust to provide communities with funds to build, rehabilitate and preserve 1.5 million units of affordable housing over the next 10 years: $5 billion

Cost, per recipient, of Job Corps, an education and training program benefiting disadvantaged youth and young adults: $17,000

Federal funding requested in 2004 to maintain the National Domestic Violence Hotline: $3 million

Federal funding requested in 2004 for the national Abandoned Infants Assistance program: $45 million

Cost of assisting states in covering the excess costs of providing special education services to children with disabilities: $8.9 billion

Annual cost of providing funding to public libraries through state formula grants so that libraries can promote wider access to learning and information: $1.6 billion between 2004 and 2009

Cost of providing grants for treatment, counseling and referral for runaway and homeless youth subjected to sexual abuse in 2003: $15 million

Annual cost of funding the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children: $20 million

Here is the source for these numbers.

Now if we were reallllly progressive, you and I (and anybody else who wants to) could make out a list that comes to $330 billion, and perhaps leave some left for debt service.

Maybe fax it or e-mail it to our elected representatives. Or something like that.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2003 07:55 am
Well done, PDiddie.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2003 07:55 am
No, not well done... Admirable.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2003 08:30 am
Heah PD, you left out paybacks to the rich - such as,

Quote:
"The existing deduction in the current law is $25,000 and President Bush initially had proposed increasing the deduction to $75,000 but the final draft of the bill called for $100,000 deduction, much to the consternation of conservationists.

"Including in the tax cut package a four-fold increase in the already egregious tax break for some SUV purchases - particularly while a comprehensive energy bill languishes in the Senate - is a poor way to make tax or energy policy," according to the Alliance to Save Energy, of Washington, D.C.

"By supporting a new $100,000 tax deduction for small business owners who purchase gas-guzzling SUVs and Hummers, Congress is sending the harmful message that it's okay to waste oil and to rip off U.S. taxpayers," said Alliance President David M. Nemtzow.

Ronnie Kweller, spokeswoman for the Alliance to Save Energy, noted the provision was originally included in the tax bill to help farmers, craftsman and contractors. It was never intended to help sell luxury SUVs, she said.

"It seems unnecessary," added Meagan Owens of the Ann Arbor-based Public Interest Research Group in Michigan. "I have difficulty understanding the justification for it," added Owens, who noted most work-ready, heavy duty trucks and SUVs cost nowhere near $100,000.

"They're a lot more vehicles closer to the bottom end of the range than top," Owens said.

"The tax package is supposed to stimulate the economy and help small businesses afford equipment such as computers and machinery. But instead, this huge tax loophole for luxury vehicles would loot the U.S. Treasury," Nemtzow said.

Kweller added it would have made more sense to use tax credits to encourage consumers to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, she added.


Aren't these worthwile needs?
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2003 08:38 am
And forty one percent of the shareholders of Ingersoll-Rand voted to bring back the company's headquarters from the tax haven of Bermuda. An attack of consience? Or do they smell something in the wind?
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2003 09:45 am
PD - As I attempted to point out elsewhere, simply listing the other things that could be done with said money is not a replacement for debating the merits of doing what was done with it, and is a meaningless exercise unless you also make a rational argument that what is being done with the money is undesirable.

We could feed a lot of starving people with the money we pay teachers. Should we close the schools? We give everyone in the world an Ivy League-class education with the money we would save if we built no homes, no roads, no buildings. We could probably cure every disease and prevent every illness with the money we would save if we stopped growing, processing, and shipping food. ...

And let's look at just one number offered; I'll assume it is accurate for the purposes of making my point. "Amount needed to provide health insurance for all 41.2 million uninsured Americans, including children, for one year: $98 billion". Now, suppose we did that tomorrow. What would be the COST to us for the healthcare-related businesses that would either go out of business or need to be reworked into a new government bureaucracy? How much would that bureaucracy cost? How many people who work in the private healthcare field would be unemployed? How many new workers would be needed on the federal payroll? ??? It's all well and good to throw around numbers and lofty ideals, but you should at least try to pretend you mean to implement your ideas in the REAL WORLD.

The only problem with the federal budget is that it is too large and too inefficient. The founders did not empower the feds to do all these nifty things precisely because they knew that a centralized government does few things well.

But I'm straying from the topic...

This tax cut goes to everyone. Those who earn the most got the smallest cut. Of course the laws of mathematics require that a smaller percentage of greater earnings ends up being a larger dollar figure. (I realize that many here think--for reasons I cannot fathom--that our highest earners should be punished by the law for earning so much, but do not fear, they remain the most penalized by our tax code!)

This tax cut will help the economy.

This tax cut will spur growth and increase tax revenues into the federal government.

Now, anyone got an argument on a point I've made? (Please keep insults to yourself.)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2003 09:52 am
Yeah, Scrat, As a matter of fact, a $320 billion tax cut over ten years will do close to nothing for a $10 trillion GNP economy. Do you understand macro/micro economics? I don't think so. c.i.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 08:01:16