Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47

Thread: Bush Economic Agenda and Katrina

  1. #1

    Bush Economic Agenda and Katrina

    OK so here we are on the verge of voting down the Estate tax, on the verge of making many tax cuts permanent and what happens but the largest deadliest most expensive disaster in American history. The congress has already dispersed 10B that they don't have and will disperse another 40B they don't have really soon - all in all the gov't could dole out 250B for Katrina. That's not including flood insurance and other subsidies that's straight aid. Forget about trimming the deficit, that stuff went right out the window.

    Here's my (serious) question: Does George Bush really have the stones to vote for more tax cuts while the country faces the worst disaster in American history? Can the Republican party be so corrupt to vote into law an act that will benefit the richest 1% of Americans while tens of thousands of poor of New Orleanian bodies are fished out of the muck? Can he vote permanent tax cuts as he "dips his wings" over the wreckage?

    and if he did would you all support this relentless pursuit of agenda?

  2. #2
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,243
    Fact

    Federal Tax receipts have increased since the tax cuts began.

  3. #3
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,243
    And please quit with your incorrect class warfare argument about tax cuts. We both know it is incorrect

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,417
    [QUOTE=Lawyers, Guns and Money]Fact

    Federal Tax receipts have increased since the tax cuts began.[/QUOTE]

    "Increased?"

    "Let him go, he's rolling"

  5. #5
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,243
    Bit

    Maybe some of the money from the energy bill and highway bill would be a better way to pay for this. Those are far more egregious IMO than tax reform

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=bitonti]OK so here we are on the verge of voting down the Estate tax, on the verge of making many tax cuts permanent and what happens but the largest deadliest most expensive disaster in American history. The congress has already dispersed 10B that they don't have and will disperse another 40B they don't have really soon - all in all the gov't could dole out 250B for Katrina. That's not including flood insurance and other subsidies that's straight aid. Forget about trimming the deficit, that stuff went right out the window.

    Here's my (serious) question: Does George Bush really have the stones to vote for more tax cuts while the country faces the worst disaster in American history? Can the Republican party be so corrupt to vote into law an act that will benefit the richest 1% of Americans while tens of thousands of poor of New Orleanian bodies are fished out of the muck? Can he vote permanent tax cuts as he "dips his wings" over the wreckage?

    and if he did would you all support this relentless pursuit of agenda?[/QUOTE]

    The worst aspect of your staggering ignorance is that is it 100% self-imposed. The second-worst aspect of it is that you flaunt it proudly.

    Tax receipts have gone up since the cuts, undercutting everything about this moronic post.

    In light of the fact that tax receipts have gone up since Bush's cuts and that every single person in the country keeps more of their own money due to these cuts - please explain to me why the tax cuts are bad?

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]The worst aspect of your staggering ignorance is that is it 100% self-imposed. The second-worst aspect of it is that you flaunt it proudly.

    Tax receipts have gone up since the cuts, undercutting everything about this moronic post.

    In light of the fact that tax receipts have gone up since Bush's cuts and that every single person in the country keeps more of their own money due to these cuts - please explain to me why the tax cuts are bad?[/QUOTE]

    Are you implying that tax recipts wouldn't have gone up without the tax cuts? Don't you think there are other factors involved? How about the fact that the country was at rock bottom after 9/11. How about the fact that interest rates were at an all-time low which caused a housing boom. Millions of people refinanced and pumped money back into the economy. I predict that we will have to pay the piper soon.

    Now I don't have any background in economics and you are more qualified than I to make statements reguarding the state of the economy, so please explain to me how I am wrong.

  8. #8
    Im well aware of the 1 time increase in tax receipts. It was an abberation - an exception to the rule, not the rule.

    you guys are free-market conservatives that all well and good but there's a time to cut taxes and there's a time when tax cuts are infeasible due to circumstances outside of gov't control (the worst national disaster in our history for example).

    My question (*which NONE OF YOU HAD THE GUTS TO ANSWER*) is should Bush go ahead with these tax cuts in light of the current circumstances?

  9. #9
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,243
    [QUOTE=Section109Row15]Are you implying that tax recipts wouldn't have gone up without the tax cuts? Don't you think there are other factors involved? How about the fact that the country was at rock bottom after 9/11. How about the fact that interest rates were at an all-time low which caused a housing boom. Millions of people refinanced and pumped money back into the economy. I predict that we will have to pay the piper soon.

    Now I don't have any background in economics and you are more qualified than I to make statements reguarding the state of the economy, so please explain to me how I am wrong.[/QUOTE]

    True, accommodative policy did helped spur the economy. But the effects of long term accommodative monetary policy is inflation. Real GDP would not have changed in the long run. "Paying the Piper" is curbing inflation in your scenario, IE restrictive monetary policy, Fed reserves selling bonds which decreases the supply of currency, raising the discount rate which is the rate banks can borrow form the fed reserve and raising reserve requirements which is the amount of every dollar deposited that the bank has to keep in reserves and not lend. This should raise int erst rates and cool the housing market.

    All of this is independent of the president and fiscal policy. I am unsure what the effect on real tax receipts this had on the federal level. I think it is fair to say the wealth effect defiantly had a positive effect on nominal and real GDP.
    Last edited by Lawyers, Guns and Money; 09-07-2005 at 11:25 AM.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=bitonti]Im well aware of the 1 time increase in tax receipts. It was an abberation - an exception to the rule, not the rule.

    you guys are free-market conservatives that all well and good but there's a time to cut taxes and there's a time when tax cuts are infeasible due to circumstances outside of gov't control (the worst national disaster in our history for example).

    My question (*which NONE OF YOU HAD THE GUTS TO ANSWER*) is should Bush go ahead with these tax cuts in light of the current circumstances?[/QUOTE]

    Yes, he should.

    Section - I'll give you a detailed answer in a bit...I saw your question, it's a good question...

  11. #11
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Greenwich Village, NY
    Posts
    2,243
    [QUOTE=bitonti]Im well aware of the 1 time increase in tax receipts. It was an abberation - an exception to the rule, not the rule.

    you guys are free-market conservatives that all well and good but there's a time to cut taxes and there's a time when tax cuts are infeasible due to circumstances outside of gov't control (the worst national disaster in our history for example).

    My question (*which NONE OF YOU HAD THE GUTS TO ANSWER*) is should Bush go ahead with these tax cuts in light of the current circumstances?[/QUOTE]


    I thought my answer was implied. He most certainly should. The funds in the highway and energy bills being irresponsible spent would be a better source IMO than a tax increase.

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Yes, he should.
    [/QUOTE]

    let me just get this straight

    not only are we at war but we have to pay for the biggest national disaster in American history - cost in the hundreds of billions - and we should further decrease the income of the government?

    How does that make sense? Seriously am I missing something?

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=bitonti]Im well aware of the 1 time increase in tax receipts. It was an abberation - an exception to the rule, not the rule.

    you guys are free-market conservatives that all well and good but there's a time to cut taxes and there's a time when tax cuts are infeasible due to circumstances outside of gov't control (the worst national disaster in our history for example).

    My question (*which NONE OF YOU HAD THE GUTS TO ANSWER*) is should Bush go ahead with these tax cuts in light of the current circumstances?[/QUOTE]

    Yes, he should. The FEderal Govt. does not "owe" it to anyone to rebuild NO. In fact, it is my opinion that NO should NOT be rebuilt, due to the foolishness of it's below-sea-level location anyway.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Lawyers, Guns and Money]I thought my answer was implied. He most certainly should. The funds in the highway and energy bills being irresponsible spent would be a better source IMO than a tax increase.[/QUOTE]

    Im not talking about a tax increase I'm talking about a maintaining of current levels... i.e. not repealling the estate tax, and not making tempoary cuts permanent.

    I can agree with you there are bloat in other bills but that's neither here nor there - it would be nice if the gov't could make up their shortfall through cutting pork but those bills are already passed. All we can do is look forward.

    I just can't comprehend how you guys still want to cut taxes in light of all these circumstances. You are aware that this government aid for Katrina goes right onto the deficit right? The President was talking about reducing the deficit at 10 B chunks per year - meanwhile we are borrowing 50 B with another 250 B to come just for Katrina. By the time Bush leaves office the deficit could be the largest ever as a percentage of GDP. WHile I am aware of the upside to deficit spending I don't forsee another dot.com boom to bail us out like the last time. The economic consequences from Katrina under the status quo could be dire, by cutting taxes further we would only be excaserbating the situation.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=bitonti]let me just get this straight

    not only are we at war but we have to pay for the biggest national disaster in American history - cost in the hundreds of billions - and we should further decrease the income of the government?

    How does that make sense? Seriously am I missing something?[/QUOTE]

    The income of the government increased after the cuts, you are missning something. You are just not a serious person on this issue. You are a chirping bird.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Yes, he should. The FEderal Govt. does not "owe" it to anyone to rebuild NO. In fact, it is my opinion that NO should NOT be rebuilt, due to the foolishness of it's below-sea-level location anyway.[/QUOTE]

    Warfish whether you want them to spend it or not - they are spending that money right now. 10 Billion last week. 40 billion this week... and that's just for starters. That's just "to hold them over" until the real spending starts. That's not rebuilding costs that's rescue/recovery costs - pumping the city out etc.

    I agree it's not necessarily a wise thing to do but it's essentially unpatriotic to say we aren't going to rebuild. They are gonna rebuild that's not even up for debate - i wish it were but it's not. The rebuilding costs are one thing but I'm just talking right now about reactionary costs, which are sizable.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=bitonti]Im not talking about a tax increase I'm talking about a maintaining of current levels... i.e. not repealling the estate tax, and not making tempoary cuts permanent.

    I can agree with you there are bloat in other bills but that's neither here nor there - it would be nice if the gov't could make up their shortfall through cutting pork but those bills are already passed. All we can do is look forward.

    I just can't comprehend how you guys still want to cut taxes in light of all these circumstances. You are aware that this government aid for Katrina goes right onto the deficit right? The President was talking about reducing the deficit at 10 B chunks per year - meanwhile we are borrowing 50 B with another 250 B to come just for Katrina. By the time Bush leaves office the deficit could be the largest ever as a percentage of GDP. WHile I am aware of the upside to deficit spending I don't forsee another dot.com boom to bail us out like the last time. The economic consequences from Katrina under the status quo could be dire, by cutting taxes further we would only be excaserbating the situation.[/QUOTE]

    Really, higher than it was during WWII? You sure about that, boss?

    Matt - you need to begin to consider the possibility that a tiny chance may exist that you conceievably don't know exactly what you are talking about.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]The income of the government increased after the cuts, you are missning something. You are just not a serious person on this issue. You are a chirping bird.[/QUOTE]

    This chirping bird line is getting old and frankly i thought you were beyond name calling in debate. I guess you didn't show up for debating class that day when they said name calling smacks of amatuerism, and it implies you have nothing real to contribute. It could be argued that name calling in debate is the last refuge of the defeated.

    but what do I know i'm just a chirping bird!



    5ever the taxes went up due to asset appreciation it was an abberation and you know it. Honestly do you believe gov't income will increase again? I don't. Between energy costs and Katrina the taxes as is will be short. Cutting them further while the country is this vulnerable is not thinking big picture.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=bitonti]This chirping bird line is getting old and frankly i thought you were beyond name calling in debate. I guess you didn't show up for debating class that day when they said name calling smacks of amatuerism, and it implies you have nothing real to contribute. It could be argued that name calling in debate is the last refuge of the defeated.

    but what do I know i'm just a chirping bird!



    5ever the taxes went up due to asset appreciation it was an abberation and you know it. Honestly do you believe gov't income will increase again? I don't. Between energy costs and Katrina the taxes as is will be short. Cutting them further while the country is this vulnerable is not thinking big picture.[/QUOTE]

    All you do is call Bush names and his supporters names. Frankly, you're not nearly as smart as I thought you were. Your idiocy is particularly relentless today for some reason.

    If I had a dollar for every time you've used the phrase "big picture" I'd be a rich man. Only Matt Bitonti is capable of thinking big picture.

    This is a waste of time - you're not worth it. Make a decent point Matt...this thread is simply moronic. You ARE a chriping bird.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Really, higher than it was during WWII? You sure about that, boss?

    Matt - you need to begin to consider the possibility that a tiny chance may exist that you conceievably don't know exactly what you are talking about.[/QUOTE]

    I'm not an expert but I know more than most.

    George ok im not counting WWII - that was an error - admitted - deficits were like 30% of the total economy - this is about 5 or 6%.

    but you know they didn't cut taxes during WWII.

    Still just because the deficit isn't as bad as WWII that doesn't make it a good thing. The record in real dollars was Reagan's and Bush is on course to beat that - even before Katrina - now we should cut taxes as well?

    Greenspan said the deficit was threatening to drag down our economy was he a liar when he said that?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us