Hope I'm not going off-topic, (or ON topic?). But I've never been clear about the basic concept of a national debt.
What's the eventual outcome of having a national debt in the google range? Is your currency simply rendered useless? I thought I heard of something before about some countries that went so into debt that the World Bank would come in and simply take control of the country's finances, (can't remember which countries: I think one of them could of been New Zealand and/or Thailand). With US over the 5 trillion dollar debt... is anything supposed to happen?
I've never been clear on what exactly proceeds when the "effects" of a huge national debt occur; enlighten me, please?
The World Bank comes along and forecloses your country <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Brave Ulysses+Jul 16 2003, 03:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Brave Ulysses @ Jul 16 2003, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The World Bank comes along and forecloses your country :D <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> When do they impose Armageddon on you, exactly? I think my country, (Canada), has been in the pits for awhile, and doesn't seem like the WB is out to get us anytime soon.
What's the time period before they come after you with a scythe? Or for this example, how much time does the US have to pay off the debt? Or do they only need to pay off some of it so they can stave some off D-day and STILL borrow more money?
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Jul 16 2003, 01:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Jul 16 2003, 01:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes Clinton cut major funding to our military and cut down funding for the FBI including postponing programs for international survalence. A year after he left office our country was attacked.
I'm not a republican or a democrat, they are both equally useless imo. But I am sick of the liberal propeganda about the economy. Countries take money to run, and the US is one of the largest in production and has the most security issues to worry about at the moment. Just because a country is in surplus doesn't mean it is a good thing, it could in fact mean there is something wrong as was the case with Mr. Horny-****-pardon-my-criminal-buddies president.
Bush is getting flak for trying to end terrorism and I don't understand it. Iraq was housing terrorist training camps, funding terrorist groups, and was a symbol for fundamentalist mentality. Bush gets flak for starting a war with a lot of civilian casulties, and what exactly was Kosovo? And Kosovo didn't even have a point we just ended pulling out after we did a crapload of damage. I won't even mention Samalia.
He is waging war and spending money for a reason and it may be more pleasant to do nothing but it isn't right. Imo it's time to start cleaning up the world and getting rid of these idiotic sectors of fundamentalist thug countries that have just been taking a giant poop on diplomacy for about 60 years. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Amen. Glad to hear a moderate speak the truth. I will admit to being republican, but I'm actually quite near the center, but due to people being so use to have liberal bias their entire life, I'm always called names such as being a radical right wing nazi (don't even get me started on how Nazism IS CENTERED TOWARDS THE LEFT EITHER *cough socialism, strong goverment, cough*
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Jul 16 2003, 01:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 16 2003, 01:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Jul 16 2003, 01:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Jul 16 2003, 01:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Get over the fact that he is waging war and spending money. Imo it's time to start cleaning up the world and getting rid of these idiotic sectors of fundamentalist thug countries that have just been taking a giant poop on diplomacy for about 60 years. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You mean America?
And even if we are "cleaning up the world" who made it our job? And since when has cleaning up the world taken a back seat to cleaning up your own back yard? Because that's what this war has meant. Taking money from domestic prgrams and your own citizens, and useing it to wage wars that will not help to solve any domestic problems and will most likely start a few new international problems. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Taking money away from programs that give HARD EARNED MONEY to jerks, many of whom CHOOSE not to take a job because they can earn more money just driving to stand in line for 20 mins a week for a free check.
Excuse me, but I find it funny that a liberal suported program such as welfare is getting your support, but not being isolationists and instead helping people (something that is actually quite liberal) is getting based by you.
Funny that your probably supported Clinton when he spoke of going after Saddam, and Gore when he bashed Bush for not pursuing Saddam all the way up until Feburary of 2002. Hypocrite.
<!--QuoteBegin--Confuzor+Jul 16 2003, 06:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Confuzor @ Jul 16 2003, 06:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Brave Ulysses+Jul 16 2003, 03:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Brave Ulysses @ Jul 16 2003, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The World Bank comes along and forecloses your country <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> When do they impose Armageddon on you, exactly? I think my country, (Canada), has been in the pits for awhile, and doesn't seem like the WB is out to get us anytime soon.
What's the time period before they come after you with a scythe? Or for this example, how much time does the US have to pay off the debt? Or do they only need to pay off some of it so they can stave some off D-day and STILL borrow more money? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> National Debt affects your country's imports and exports. When a country has a lot of debt it general has to pay higher prices on imports. It also has a range of effects on production taxes as well as how much goods a country may produce, the value of it's currency (inflation/deflation), even things like tourism.
Since 75% of a country's like US budget is made up of "soft" money there would be no practical way to collect on it anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--Duff-Man+Jul 16 2003, 01:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Duff-Man @ Jul 16 2003, 01:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bleh, I'm moving out of the country.
It sickens me to see a good President like Clinton take so much **** for one mistake he made, even barring that it wasn't really a political mistake, but rather a mistake caused by human nature itself. I don't even want to get started on George Bush. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Duff as much as I like you, I can't agree with you. None of the money that excisted during the Clinton years was ever truely there.
Under Clinton, supposedly 1.5 million jobs were created, but because of his Tax hike, 1 million jobs were lost in the private sector, most if which paid more.
Most of the economic scandals broke out under Clinton, but were revealed during Bush's time. Who takes the wrap, obviously Bush. The media would never speak out against their baby face darling Clinton, whom they constantly showed polls of having a high job approval to get peoples mind off his scandal with Monica.
Lets not even get started on the 75 million dollars he wasted in he Tomahawk missiles that he launched to hit only a fricken' toothpaste factory in retalation for the U.S.S Cole attacks just to try to get peoples minds off of his scandal with Monica.
Clinton sucked. People should open their eyes and realize that none of those good economic times even really excisted, and if he did anything right, it was leaving Greenspan in, someone that BUSH SENIOR hired to begin with.
<!--QuoteBegin--sekdar+Jul 16 2003, 01:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (sekdar @ Jul 16 2003, 01:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i only did so-so in economics, but don't new economic laws and policies take around 4-5 years before they go into effect? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Before some of the major effects of them are really felt, yes. Hence, the Regean years stuff didn't really effect us until the early 90's and it was the only thing that kept our econmy from outright collapsing after the major tax hike imposed.
Short term effects such as those experienced after the annoucement of Bush's tax cut's going through exciting the big buyers in the stock market take place too, but they aren't usually long term until later.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Taking money away from programs that give HARD EARNED MONEY to jerks, many of whom CHOOSE not to take a job because they can earn more money just driving to stand in line for 20 mins a week for a free check.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Versus giving it to a whole other set of jerks-- the ruling administration's golf budies. Have you actually seen how Bush's new tax cut gets distributed?
Now, I'm not a 'the rich get back more, it's unfair!' idiot. Of course the rich should get more <i>dollars</i> back-- they paid more to begin with.
However, should they get a larger <i>percentage</i> back? I can't recall the exact figures (and anyone correct me if I'm wrong) but I believe that between someone earning 30k and someone earning 180k, the upper level received 3% more of their income back (and we're talking about base numbers between 0 and 10, so that's a significant amount).
And what about <i>corporate</i> welfare? With the rate at which jobs are being dumped overseas, American corporations should be doing just fine on their own, without having to reach into my pocket, thank you very much.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ben128+Jul 16 2003, 01:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ben128 @ Jul 16 2003, 01:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Very true skedar. What Clinton did would be comming into play right about now...just some food for thought as well.
I know, its weird, but I do at least care a bit about what happens in the world are me. If someone can live a little better of a life and we can give it to them, why not? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly.
<!--QuoteBegin--coil+Jul 16 2003, 02:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Jul 16 2003, 02:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Josiah Bartlet+Jul 16 2003, 02:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Josiah Bartlet @ Jul 16 2003, 02:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I swear to God I thought they locked the Discussions Forum...must just have been me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Discussions can proceed, as long as they are not flame-filled and don't break forum rules. I will not hesitate to lock this topic if it gets out of hand, but y'all are doing <i>ok</i> so far. Those of you getting a little hot under the collar, please cool off and discuss, don't yell. (: <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Kind of hard to do with the edgy comment you made in the topic start. It <i>was</i> flame bait.
I would just like to say to Dr. D and Jammer thank you, for having the voice of sanity through all of this and all keeping me from losing mine as I read this.
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Jul 16 2003, 02:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 16 2003, 02:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--acer r+Jul 16 2003, 02:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (acer r @ Jul 16 2003, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't see it wrong, but however I do see wrong if that said country violates the indivudal people.(Not imeralism itself just the way the country is carying it out)... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well that's how imperialism has ALWAYS carried itself out, because people don't want to be controlled by foreigners, so the controlling country must FORCE them to obey. That's the way things go.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But seriously if fraud was commited on a national scale 3 years ago don't you think they would have found some concrete evidence by now?
Conspiracy theories have always had the tenedency to exist for many years without really ever being proven right or wrong. So the people who want to can hold on to the idea of it being true. Unfortunatly as far as actual criminal allegations go you need evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is evidence, plenty of it, it's all sitting in vaults in florida, but considering as this "conspiracy" invloves nearly everyone who has power in the federal gov. at the moement, and since the media as a corporation is extremely pro-Bush at this point we've just never heard about it all that much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If anybody EVER stole an election, it was Kennedy vs Nixon. There were plenty of missing ballot boxes and more dead people voting then ever recorded since.
<!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Jul 16 2003, 07:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jul 16 2003, 07:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Taking money away from programs that give HARD EARNED MONEY to jerks, many of whom CHOOSE not to take a job because they can earn more money just driving to stand in line for 20 mins a week for a free check.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Versus giving it to a whole other set of jerks-- the ruling administration's golf budies. Have you actually seen how Bush's new tax cut gets distributed?
Now, I'm not a 'the rich get back more, it's unfair!' idiot. Of course the rich should get more <i>dollars</i> back-- they paid more to begin with.
However, should they get a larger <i>percentage</i> back? I can't recall the exact figures (and anyone correct me if I'm wrong) but I believe that between someone earning 30k and someone earning 180k, the upper level received 3% more of their income back (and we're talking about base numbers between 0 and 10, so that's a significant amount).
And what about <i>corporate</i> welfare? With the rate at which jobs are being dumped overseas, American corporations should be doing just fine on their own, without having to reach into my pocket, thank you very much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not even speaking about the Tax Cuts, I'm speaking about the spending on the military.
Actually yes, I have seen where the Tax cuts go, and because of that Tax Cut, we can actually afford to go to my brothers wedding this year, and I won't be forced to pay for ALL of my college, that extra money really does come in handy, thank you very much.
My family is not rich, but democrats love to impose taxes that only end up hurting the upper middile class citizens such as my family.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually yes, I have seen where the Tax cuts go, and because of that Tax Cut, we can actually afford to go to my brothers wedding this year, and I won't be forced to pay for ALL of my college, that extra money really does come in handy, thank you very much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're welcome. But you're missing my point entirely.
Of course you get money back-- but the wealthy get a larger <i>percentage</i> of their wealth back. People earning 8,600 get 5.5% of their income back. People earning close to a million get <i>over 11%</i>.
The Bush administration appreciates you turning a blind eye to this.
George W. comes into office: 2001: 1.2% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>. 2002: 1.5% <b><span style='color:red'>DEFICIT</span></b>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Reason's Bush shouldn't be pres
1. He has ADHD (He picks up one thing [Afghanistan and Iraq], then drops in half-way through and picks up another) 2. History repeats itself (John Adams then John Quincy Adams anyone?) 3. He looks like a monkeh! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They arent abandoned.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(don't even get me started on how Nazism IS CENTERED TOWARDS THE LEFT EITHER *cough socialism, strong goverment, cough* <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah i know I talk about lessie faire economy and get called labeled a nazi WTH?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, should they get a larger percentage back? I can't recall the exact figures (and anyone correct me if I'm wrong) but I believe that between someone earning 30k and someone earning 180k, the upper level received 3% more of their income back (and we're talking about base numbers between 0 and 10, so that's a significant amount). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They pay a higher percentage monkey. We have a progresive tax.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And what about corporate welfare? With the rate at which jobs are being dumped overseas, American corporations should be doing just fine on their own, without having to reach into my pocket, thank you very much. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes corporate welfare sucks but don't act like Bush started it. I have some more problems with him such as his tarriff on steel.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They pay a higher percentage monkey. We have a progresive tax.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I used to believe that, and then I met some very clever corporate accountants.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
We seem to be trying to fit the entire discussion forum into this thread. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Supply and demand anyone? <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Getting back on the original topic *ahem*.
There is actually a bit of economic sense behind accruing a national deficit in times of economic downturn. According to the aggregate expenditures model of the macroeconomy, it is a natural and beneficial thing for governments to go into debt in a recession, <b>provided that they save the surpluses that occur when the economy is expanding too fast</b>. The combination of a progressive tax system and government expenditures are designed to keep the economy stable.
According to theory, this is how it works. When the economy is at its desired level, the government should be breaking even. When the economy goes into the crapper, people make less money, and as a result the government collects a lot less money from taxes. But because the government is spending the same amount, the net result is an influx of money into the economy, which helps the economy recover to its previous level. The opposite occurs when the economy is growing too fast. Tax revenues increase above the levels of government spending, and the net result is a government surplus, and money gets taken out of the economy. This tightens the money market, and slows down the economy to a more healthy level of growth.
The ideal state is an economy that grows slowly but steadily without major ups and downs. While you might initially think that the economy can never be growing too fast, the reality is that people can get overly optimistic about a surging economy and cause it to crash later. If people get used to an economy soaring ahead, they are likely to invest too heavily in new capital. When the economy slows even a little this excess production capacity becomes a liability that they can't recoup through sales, and their finances colapse. The result is the economic state that the US is witnessing right now.
The problem is that the government is elected, and the people that elect them don't understand how this works. As a result, you will never hear a candidate talking about how they think saving the surplus is a great idea. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Jul 16 2003, 07:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jul 16 2003, 07:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->They pay a higher percentage monkey. We have a progresive tax.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I used to believe that, and then I met some very clever corporate accountants. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you think they make the Irs tax code 500 pages long for no reason? I don't think republicans are soley responsible either.
Anotherthing about corporate welfare is alot of those industries are regulated, airlines, farms, rail ext. Because of that they don't really ajust to the market so the goverment ends up giving them hand outs.
That_Annoying_KidSire of TitlesJoin Date: 2003-03-01Member: 14175Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin--coil+Jul 16 2003, 11:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Jul 16 2003, 11:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> According to the NY times, here's what our goverment's national deficit has done in the last 10 years, as a percentage of the GDP:
1989: 2.8%. 1990: 4%. 1991: 4.5%. 1992: 4.8% (This is the last year of the old Bush administration, and the previous record for largest deficit at $290 billion).
Clinton comes into office: 1993: 4%. 1994: 3%. 1995: 2.2%. 1996: 1.4%.
George W. comes into office: 2001: 1.2% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>. 2002: 1.5% <b><span style='color:red'>DEFICIT</span></b>.
Current projections for 2003 and 2004 are a 4.2% deficit. This year's projected deficit is currently <b>$455 BILLION</b>, which is not only by far the largest deficit ever, but $150 billion MORE than the previous estimate, made just five months ago.
The White House projects the following deficits for the future: 2004: $475b 2005: $304b 2006: $238b 2007: $213b 2008: $226b (yes, that's a HIGHER number again)
This would add $1.9 trillion to the national debt, increasing it to $8.6 trillion by 2008. Budget *spending* estimates, however, don't even include the costs of maintaining troops in and rebuilding both Iraq and Afghanistan. Pentagon estimates put spending for these actions at $5 billion PER MONTH for military expenses alone.
Someone remind me why we elected Dubya? Oh wait, we didn't. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> /me gives coil highfive
you make a compelling argument, and you even pointed out the GDP, which were studing in economics (it's summer school, go figure)
oh and the tax cuts currently coming from the Bush administration actually switch the tax brackets and give the people more money back if your richer, and it's harder to be richer (by the tax standards) becuase they shifted the income bracket of where you fall into the tax return so that the last bracket doesn't end with 200,000 and above but like 250,000 and above or something like that
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Jul 16 2003, 07:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 16 2003, 07:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I would just like to say to Dr. D and Jammer thank you, for having the voice of sanity through all of this and all keeping me from losing mine as I read this. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're very welcome : )
And Xzilen take it easy your going to sprain a finger hehe.
Kid: Shifting brackets like that would mean people who earn less would pay less taxes. Being in a "higher tax bracket" isn't good, it means your paying more taxes. I can't say I know all the details of bushes tax cut (I usually don't give a crap about tax cuts anyway cause as soon as there is someone new in office we either give back everything we save or take back everything we had to spend) but if you're saying people are falling out of higher tax brackets that actually means some of the strain is finally being taken off middle income families which is a good thing.
<!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Jul 16 2003, 07:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jul 16 2003, 07:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually yes, I have seen where the Tax cuts go, and because of that Tax Cut, we can actually afford to go to my brothers wedding this year, and I won't be forced to pay for ALL of my college, that extra money really does come in handy, thank you very much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're welcome. But you're missing my point entirely.
Of course you get money back-- but the wealthy get a larger <i>percentage</i> of their wealth back. People earning 8,600 get 5.5% of their income back. People earning close to a million get <i>over 11%</i>.
The Bush administration appreciates you turning a blind eye to this. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, but those people with the lower income also pay a MUCH, MUCH lower precentage on taxes. Granted they can't afford to pay out a large percentage, but it does equal out a bit more than you make it out to be man.
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Jul 16 2003, 07:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Jul 16 2003, 07:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Jul 16 2003, 07:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jul 16 2003, 07:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I would just like to say to Dr. D and Jammer thank you, for having the voice of sanity through all of this and all keeping me from losing mine as I read this. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're very welcome : )
And Xzilen take it easy your going to sprain a finger hehe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Meee?!?!
Nevarr!
Yes, yes, I do need to calm down. I am VERY sensistive towards politics because being conservative makes it very hard to succeed in school if you believe in your views. The moment you say you don't believe in everything a liberal says, your teachers will never forgive you :-\
Or for the most part they won't, I've met some wonderful teachers who accepted the fact that I thought differently then them, and even one or two conservative teachers who were overjoyed to discuss political matters with me.
Like I was saying taxes are just political rehtoric that politicians use to push their agendas. If you have a decent accountant and keep decent track of your expenses you don't have to worry about taxes too much (for the most part).
Like I said tax cuts/hikes/rates change from presidential term to presidential term and if you were saving 5% a year with one president you'll give all of it back as soon as another says he wants to raise taxes. It's just a silly issue to get up in a fuss about.
And in my opinion it should be #10 on your top 10 things to worry about list, following traffic and gas prices.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited July 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Jul 16 2003, 02:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Jul 16 2003, 02:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its easy to distrort what actually happened with this economy. Clinton raised taxes and helped the economy. Bush lowered taxes and HURT the economy. huh? Thats not right. Reagan cut taxes that boosted the economy. Bush Sr. had the misfortune of being at a down turn. Then Clinton jumped in, Bush's econmic stim and Reagan's economy came back. Clinton just had the luck to fall at the right time in the buisness cycle. So Clinton raises taxes and leading Senate Republicans said "Bill Clinton's economic policy will lead us straight to recession." in 1994 (Source: "We're Right, They're Wrong" by James Carville. This book was written in 1998 and ironically, used that statement to prove how republicans were wrong!). So Clinton raises taxes and then Bush takes office. The economy was already in recession, research has shown, in the summer of 1999 after the bubble burst. So unless GWB has learned how to travel back in time, this is Clinton's recession. Bush is trying his damnest to get this economy back on track, here in the present day.
So THATS what happened. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, you might be interested to know that increasing taxes and government spending by exactly the same amount <b>Stimulates</b> the economy. Decreasing taxes and government spending by the same amount <b>Depresses</b> the economy. (Not that I don't think Bush is doing his damnedest to improve the economy, but so many people seem to equate tax cuts with helping the economy that I thought I needed to put this in.)
I'd like to recommend to everyone that if you have an opportunity to take an economics course sometime in high school or college that you take advantage of it. It will be an eye opening experience. These days I think a thorough knowledge of economics is essential to having informed political opinions. The economics course I took Sr. year changed my life.
(btw people, please read that long post I made up above. I put a bit of time into it, and I'd like somebody to get something out of it <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> )
Well from what I know about the plan it's an attempt to stimulate the consumer market and with the elmination of the double dividend tax the stock market should get a boost as well. Consumer confidence was one of the hardest hit sectors in the last few years.
and moult: That economic model is a perfect thing to follow but it's sometimes overshadowed by consumer trends and outside influences like war, when spending becomes erradic.
Anyway personally I hold more importance in foreign policy and non-economic domestic issues cause in the end a more stable world will lead to a more stable world economy which ideally leads to a better domestic economy.
(I just have beef with a lot of US domestic policies like the idiotic war on drugs, and the insane amount of money poured into enforcing laws that promote nothing but violence and drug traffic)
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Jul 16 2003, 08:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jul 16 2003, 08:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Jul 16 2003, 02:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Jul 16 2003, 02:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its easy to distrort what actually happened with this economy. Clinton raised taxes and helped the economy. Bush lowered taxes and HURT the economy. huh? Thats not right. Reagan cut taxes that boosted the economy. Bush Sr. had the misfortune of being at a down turn. Then Clinton jumped in, Bush's econmic stim and Reagan's economy came back. Clinton just had the luck to fall at the right time in the buisness cycle. So Clinton raises taxes and leading Senate Republicans said "Bill Clinton's economic policy will lead us straight to recession." in 1994 (Source: "We're Right, They're Wrong" by James Carville. This book was written in 1998 and ironically, used that statement to prove how republicans were wrong!). So Clinton raises taxes and then Bush takes office. The economy was already in recession, research has shown, in the summer of 1999 after the bubble burst. So unless GWB has learned how to travel back in time, this is Clinton's recession. Bush is trying his damnest to get this economy back on track, here in the present day.
So THATS what happened. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, you might be interested to know that increasing taxes and government spending by exactly the same amount <b>Stimulates</b> the economy. Decreasing taxes and government spending by the same amount <b>Depresses</b> the economy. (Not that I don't think Bush is doing his damnedest to improve the economy, but so many people seem to equate tax cuts with helping the economy that I thought I needed to put this in.)
I'd like to recommend to everyone that if you have an opportunity to take an economics course sometime in high school or college that you take advantage of it. It will be an eye opening experience. These days I think a thorough knowledge of economics is essential to having informed political opinions. The economics course I took Sr. year changed my life.
(btw, please read that long post I made up above. I put a bit of time into it, and I'd like somebody to get something out of it <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> ) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Did you just pick up a book on kanien economics? There is a reason the great depression lasted so long. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
If the goverment takes more money out of the buisness cycle there is less money to go around. There is less money for people to invest and to expand.
Comments
3. He looks like a monkeh! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He really does! <a href='http://www.jabronijustin.net/i/georgemonkey.jpg' target='_blank'>http://www.jabronijustin.net/i/georgemonkey.jpg</a>
What's the eventual outcome of having a national debt in the google range? Is your currency simply rendered useless? I thought I heard of something before about some countries that went so into debt that the World Bank would come in and simply take control of the country's finances, (can't remember which countries: I think one of them could of been New Zealand and/or Thailand). With US over the 5 trillion dollar debt... is anything supposed to happen?
I've never been clear on what exactly proceeds when the "effects" of a huge national debt occur; enlighten me, please?
When do they impose Armageddon on you, exactly? I think my country, (Canada), has been in the pits for awhile, and doesn't seem like the WB is out to get us anytime soon.
What's the time period before they come after you with a scythe? Or for this example, how much time does the US have to pay off the debt? Or do they only need to pay off some of it so they can stave some off D-day and STILL borrow more money?
I'm not a republican or a democrat, they are both equally useless imo. But I am sick of the liberal propeganda about the economy. Countries take money to run, and the US is one of the largest in production and has the most security issues to worry about at the moment. Just because a country is in surplus doesn't mean it is a good thing, it could in fact mean there is something wrong as was the case with Mr. Horny-****-pardon-my-criminal-buddies president.
Bush is getting flak for trying to end terrorism and I don't understand it. Iraq was housing terrorist training camps, funding terrorist groups, and was a symbol for fundamentalist mentality. Bush gets flak for starting a war with a lot of civilian casulties, and what exactly was Kosovo? And Kosovo didn't even have a point we just ended pulling out after we did a crapload of damage. I won't even mention Samalia.
He is waging war and spending money for a reason and it may be more pleasant to do nothing but it isn't right. Imo it's time to start cleaning up the world and getting rid of these idiotic sectors of fundamentalist thug countries that have just been taking a giant poop on diplomacy for about 60 years. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amen. Glad to hear a moderate speak the truth. I will admit to being republican, but I'm actually quite near the center, but due to people being so use to have liberal bias their entire life, I'm always called names such as being a radical right wing nazi (don't even get me started on how Nazism IS CENTERED TOWARDS THE LEFT EITHER *cough socialism, strong goverment, cough*
You mean America?
And even if we are "cleaning up the world" who made it our job? And since when has cleaning up the world taken a back seat to cleaning up your own back yard? Because that's what this war has meant. Taking money from domestic prgrams and your own citizens, and useing it to wage wars that will not help to solve any domestic problems and will most likely start a few new international problems. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Taking money away from programs that give HARD EARNED MONEY to jerks, many of whom CHOOSE not to take a job because they can earn more money just driving to stand in line for 20 mins a week for a free check.
Excuse me, but I find it funny that a liberal suported program such as welfare is getting your support, but not being isolationists and instead helping people (something that is actually quite liberal) is getting based by you.
Funny that your probably supported Clinton when he spoke of going after Saddam, and Gore when he bashed Bush for not pursuing Saddam all the way up until Feburary of 2002. Hypocrite.
When do they impose Armageddon on you, exactly? I think my country, (Canada), has been in the pits for awhile, and doesn't seem like the WB is out to get us anytime soon.
What's the time period before they come after you with a scythe? Or for this example, how much time does the US have to pay off the debt? Or do they only need to pay off some of it so they can stave some off D-day and STILL borrow more money? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
National Debt affects your country's imports and exports. When a country has a lot of debt it general has to pay higher prices on imports. It also has a range of effects on production taxes as well as how much goods a country may produce, the value of it's currency (inflation/deflation), even things like tourism.
Since 75% of a country's like US budget is made up of "soft" money there would be no practical way to collect on it anyway.
It sickens me to see a good President like Clinton take so much **** for one mistake he made, even barring that it wasn't really a political mistake, but rather a mistake caused by human nature itself. I don't even want to get started on George Bush. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Duff as much as I like you, I can't agree with you. None of the money that excisted during the Clinton years was ever truely there.
Under Clinton, supposedly 1.5 million jobs were created, but because of his Tax hike, 1 million jobs were lost in the private sector, most if which paid more.
Most of the economic scandals broke out under Clinton, but were revealed during Bush's time. Who takes the wrap, obviously Bush. The media would never speak out against their baby face darling Clinton, whom they constantly showed polls of having a high job approval to get peoples mind off his scandal with Monica.
Lets not even get started on the 75 million dollars he wasted in he Tomahawk missiles that he launched to hit only a fricken' toothpaste factory in retalation for the U.S.S Cole attacks just to try to get peoples minds off of his scandal with Monica.
Clinton sucked. People should open their eyes and realize that none of those good economic times even really excisted, and if he did anything right, it was leaving Greenspan in, someone that BUSH SENIOR hired to begin with.
Before some of the major effects of them are really felt, yes. Hence, the Regean years stuff didn't really effect us until the early 90's and it was the only thing that kept our econmy from outright collapsing after the major tax hike imposed.
Short term effects such as those experienced after the annoucement of Bush's tax cut's going through exciting the big buyers in the stock market take place too, but they aren't usually long term until later.
Versus giving it to a whole other set of jerks-- the ruling administration's golf budies. Have you actually seen how Bush's new tax cut gets distributed?
Now, I'm not a 'the rich get back more, it's unfair!' idiot. Of course the rich should get more <i>dollars</i> back-- they paid more to begin with.
However, should they get a larger <i>percentage</i> back? I can't recall the exact figures (and anyone correct me if I'm wrong) but I believe that between someone earning 30k and someone earning 180k, the upper level received 3% more of their income back (and we're talking about base numbers between 0 and 10, so that's a significant amount).
And what about <i>corporate</i> welfare? With the rate at which jobs are being dumped overseas, American corporations should be doing just fine on their own, without having to reach into my pocket, thank you very much.
I know, its weird, but I do at least care a bit about what happens in the world are me. If someone can live a little better of a life and we can give it to them, why not? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly.
Discussions can proceed, as long as they are not flame-filled and don't break forum rules. I will not hesitate to lock this topic if it gets out of hand, but y'all are doing <i>ok</i> so far. Those of you getting a little hot under the collar, please cool off and discuss, don't yell. (: <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kind of hard to do with the edgy comment you made in the topic start. It <i>was</i> flame bait.
Well that's how imperialism has ALWAYS carried itself out, because people don't want to be controlled by foreigners, so the controlling country must FORCE them to obey. That's the way things go.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But seriously if fraud was commited on a national scale 3 years ago don't you think they would have found some concrete evidence by now?
Conspiracy theories have always had the tenedency to exist for many years without really ever being proven right or wrong. So the people who want to can hold on to the idea of it being true. Unfortunatly as far as actual criminal allegations go you need evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is evidence, plenty of it, it's all sitting in vaults in florida, but considering as this "conspiracy" invloves nearly everyone who has power in the federal gov. at the moement, and since the media as a corporation is extremely pro-Bush at this point we've just never heard about it all that much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If anybody EVER stole an election, it was Kennedy vs Nixon. There were plenty of missing ballot boxes and more dead people voting then ever recorded since.
Versus giving it to a whole other set of jerks-- the ruling administration's golf budies. Have you actually seen how Bush's new tax cut gets distributed?
Now, I'm not a 'the rich get back more, it's unfair!' idiot. Of course the rich should get more <i>dollars</i> back-- they paid more to begin with.
However, should they get a larger <i>percentage</i> back? I can't recall the exact figures (and anyone correct me if I'm wrong) but I believe that between someone earning 30k and someone earning 180k, the upper level received 3% more of their income back (and we're talking about base numbers between 0 and 10, so that's a significant amount).
And what about <i>corporate</i> welfare? With the rate at which jobs are being dumped overseas, American corporations should be doing just fine on their own, without having to reach into my pocket, thank you very much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not even speaking about the Tax Cuts, I'm speaking about the spending on the military.
Actually yes, I have seen where the Tax cuts go, and because of that Tax Cut, we can actually afford to go to my brothers wedding this year, and I won't be forced to pay for ALL of my college, that extra money really does come in handy, thank you very much.
My family is not rich, but democrats love to impose taxes that only end up hurting the upper middile class citizens such as my family.
You're welcome. But you're missing my point entirely.
Of course you get money back-- but the wealthy get a larger <i>percentage</i> of their wealth back. People earning 8,600 get 5.5% of their income back. People earning close to a million get <i>over 11%</i>.
The Bush administration appreciates you turning a blind eye to this.
Clinton comes into office:
1993: 4%.
1994: 3%.
1995: 2.2%.
1996: 1.4%.
1997: 0.3%.
1998: 0.7% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
1999: 1.3% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
2000: 2.4% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
George W. comes into office:
2001: 1.2% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
2002: 1.5% <b><span style='color:red'>DEFICIT</span></b>. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reason's Bush shouldn't be pres
1. He has ADHD (He picks up one thing [Afghanistan and Iraq], then drops in half-way through and picks up another)
2. History repeats itself (John Adams then John Quincy Adams anyone?)
3. He looks like a monkeh! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They arent abandoned.
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3067871.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3067871.stm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(don't even get me started on how Nazism IS CENTERED TOWARDS THE LEFT EITHER *cough socialism, strong goverment, cough*
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah i know I talk about lessie faire economy and get called labeled a nazi WTH?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, should they get a larger percentage back? I can't recall the exact figures (and anyone correct me if I'm wrong) but I believe that between someone earning 30k and someone earning 180k, the upper level received 3% more of their income back (and we're talking about base numbers between 0 and 10, so that's a significant amount).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They pay a higher percentage monkey. We have a progresive tax.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And what about corporate welfare? With the rate at which jobs are being dumped overseas, American corporations should be doing just fine on their own, without having to reach into my pocket, thank you very much. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes corporate welfare sucks but don't act like Bush started it. I have some more problems with him such as his tarriff on steel.
I used to believe that, and then I met some very clever corporate accountants.
Getting back on the original topic *ahem*.
There is actually a bit of economic sense behind accruing a national deficit in times of economic downturn. According to the aggregate expenditures model of the macroeconomy, it is a natural and beneficial thing for governments to go into debt in a recession, <b>provided that they save the surpluses that occur when the economy is expanding too fast</b>. The combination of a progressive tax system and government expenditures are designed to keep the economy stable.
According to theory, this is how it works. When the economy is at its desired level, the government should be breaking even. When the economy goes into the crapper, people make less money, and as a result the government collects a lot less money from taxes. But because the government is spending the same amount, the net result is an influx of money into the economy, which helps the economy recover to its previous level. The opposite occurs when the economy is growing too fast. Tax revenues increase above the levels of government spending, and the net result is a government surplus, and money gets taken out of the economy. This tightens the money market, and slows down the economy to a more healthy level of growth.
The ideal state is an economy that grows slowly but steadily without major ups and downs. While you might initially think that the economy can never be growing too fast, the reality is that people can get overly optimistic about a surging economy and cause it to crash later. If people get used to an economy soaring ahead, they are likely to invest too heavily in new capital. When the economy slows even a little this excess production capacity becomes a liability that they can't recoup through sales, and their finances colapse. The result is the economic state that the US is witnessing right now.
The problem is that the government is elected, and the people that elect them don't understand how this works. As a result, you will never hear a candidate talking about how they think saving the surplus is a great idea. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
I used to believe that, and then I met some very clever corporate accountants. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you think they make the Irs tax code 500 pages long for no reason? I don't think republicans are soley responsible either.
But I'm bowing out of this thread now. Just reading the messages, it's starting to remind me why I found the discussion forums so depressing.
1989: 2.8%.
1990: 4%.
1991: 4.5%.
1992: 4.8% (This is the last year of the old Bush administration, and the previous record for largest deficit at $290 billion).
Clinton comes into office:
1993: 4%.
1994: 3%.
1995: 2.2%.
1996: 1.4%.
1997: 0.3%.
1998: 0.7% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
1999: 1.3% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
2000: 2.4% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
George W. comes into office:
2001: 1.2% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
2002: 1.5% <b><span style='color:red'>DEFICIT</span></b>.
Current projections for 2003 and 2004 are a 4.2% deficit. This year's projected deficit is currently <b>$455 BILLION</b>, which is not only by far the largest deficit ever, but $150 billion MORE than the previous estimate, made just five months ago.
The White House projects the following deficits for the future:
2004: $475b
2005: $304b
2006: $238b
2007: $213b
2008: $226b (yes, that's a HIGHER number again)
This would add $1.9 trillion to the national debt, increasing it to $8.6 trillion by 2008. Budget *spending* estimates, however, don't even include the costs of maintaining troops in and rebuilding both Iraq and Afghanistan. Pentagon estimates put spending for these actions at $5 billion PER MONTH for military expenses alone.
Someone remind me why we elected Dubya? Oh wait, we didn't. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
/me gives coil highfive
you make a compelling argument, and you even pointed out the GDP, which were studing in economics (it's summer school, go figure)
oh and the tax cuts currently coming from the Bush administration actually switch the tax brackets and give the people more money back if your richer, and it's harder to be richer (by the tax standards) becuase they shifted the income bracket of where you fall into the tax return so that the last bracket doesn't end with 200,000 and above but like 250,000 and above or something like that
was that coherent?
You're very welcome : )
And Xzilen take it easy your going to sprain a finger hehe.
Kid: Shifting brackets like that would mean people who earn less would pay less taxes. Being in a "higher tax bracket" isn't good, it means your paying more taxes. I can't say I know all the details of bushes tax cut (I usually don't give a crap about tax cuts anyway cause as soon as there is someone new in office we either give back everything we save or take back everything we had to spend) but if you're saying people are falling out of higher tax brackets that actually means some of the strain is finally being taken off middle income families which is a good thing.
You're welcome. But you're missing my point entirely.
Of course you get money back-- but the wealthy get a larger <i>percentage</i> of their wealth back. People earning 8,600 get 5.5% of their income back. People earning close to a million get <i>over 11%</i>.
The Bush administration appreciates you turning a blind eye to this. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but those people with the lower income also pay a MUCH, MUCH lower precentage on taxes. Granted they can't afford to pay out a large percentage, but it does equal out a bit more than you make it out to be man.
You're very welcome : )
And Xzilen take it easy your going to sprain a finger hehe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meee?!?!
Nevarr!
Yes, yes, I do need to calm down. I am VERY sensistive towards politics because being conservative makes it very hard to succeed in school if you believe in your views. The moment you say you don't believe in everything a liberal says, your teachers will never forgive you :-\
Or for the most part they won't, I've met some wonderful teachers who accepted the fact that I thought differently then them, and even one or two conservative teachers who were overjoyed to discuss political matters with me.
Like I said tax cuts/hikes/rates change from presidential term to presidential term and if you were saving 5% a year with one president you'll give all of it back as soon as another says he wants to raise taxes. It's just a silly issue to get up in a fuss about.
And in my opinion it should be #10 on your top 10 things to worry about list, following traffic and gas prices.
Reagan cut taxes that boosted the economy. Bush Sr. had the misfortune of being at a down turn. Then Clinton jumped in, Bush's econmic stim and Reagan's economy came back. Clinton just had the luck to fall at the right time in the buisness cycle. So Clinton raises taxes and leading Senate Republicans said "Bill Clinton's economic policy will lead us straight to recession." in 1994 (Source: "We're Right, They're Wrong" by James Carville. This book was written in 1998 and ironically, used that statement to prove how republicans were wrong!). So Clinton raises taxes and then Bush takes office. The economy was already in recession, research has shown, in the summer of 1999 after the bubble burst. So unless GWB has learned how to travel back in time, this is Clinton's recession. Bush is trying his damnest to get this economy back on track, here in the present day.
So THATS what happened. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, you might be interested to know that increasing taxes and government spending by exactly the same amount <b>Stimulates</b> the economy. Decreasing taxes and government spending by the same amount <b>Depresses</b> the economy. (Not that I don't think Bush is doing his damnedest to improve the economy, but so many people seem to equate tax cuts with helping the economy that I thought I needed to put this in.)
I'd like to recommend to everyone that if you have an opportunity to take an economics course sometime in high school or college that you take advantage of it. It will be an eye opening experience. These days I think a thorough knowledge of economics is essential to having informed political opinions. The economics course I took Sr. year changed my life.
(btw people, please read that long post I made up above. I put a bit of time into it, and I'd like somebody to get something out of it <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> )
and moult: That economic model is a perfect thing to follow but it's sometimes overshadowed by consumer trends and outside influences like war, when spending becomes erradic.
Anyway personally I hold more importance in foreign policy and non-economic domestic issues cause in the end a more stable world will lead to a more stable world economy which ideally leads to a better domestic economy.
(I just have beef with a lot of US domestic policies like the idiotic war on drugs, and the insane amount of money poured into enforcing laws that promote nothing but violence and drug traffic)
Reagan cut taxes that boosted the economy. Bush Sr. had the misfortune of being at a down turn. Then Clinton jumped in, Bush's econmic stim and Reagan's economy came back. Clinton just had the luck to fall at the right time in the buisness cycle. So Clinton raises taxes and leading Senate Republicans said "Bill Clinton's economic policy will lead us straight to recession." in 1994 (Source: "We're Right, They're Wrong" by James Carville. This book was written in 1998 and ironically, used that statement to prove how republicans were wrong!). So Clinton raises taxes and then Bush takes office. The economy was already in recession, research has shown, in the summer of 1999 after the bubble burst. So unless GWB has learned how to travel back in time, this is Clinton's recession. Bush is trying his damnest to get this economy back on track, here in the present day.
So THATS what happened. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, you might be interested to know that increasing taxes and government spending by exactly the same amount <b>Stimulates</b> the economy. Decreasing taxes and government spending by the same amount <b>Depresses</b> the economy. (Not that I don't think Bush is doing his damnedest to improve the economy, but so many people seem to equate tax cuts with helping the economy that I thought I needed to put this in.)
I'd like to recommend to everyone that if you have an opportunity to take an economics course sometime in high school or college that you take advantage of it. It will be an eye opening experience. These days I think a thorough knowledge of economics is essential to having informed political opinions. The economics course I took Sr. year changed my life.
(btw, please read that long post I made up above. I put a bit of time into it, and I'd like somebody to get something out of it <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> ) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you just pick up a book on kanien economics? There is a reason the great depression lasted so long. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
If the goverment takes more money out of the buisness cycle there is less money to go around. There is less money for people to invest and to expand.