I’m still trying to get my head around the latest estimate of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the two wars may cost $2.4 trillion (that’s with a “t”) through 2017. The estimates assume that about 75,000 U.S. troops will remain in the two countries for the next decade — which may not end up being the case but is not unreasonable, a defense analyst told USA Today. Part of the reason for the much higher estimate is that the wars are being funded with borrowed money, and the CBO included an interest cost of $705 billion. The new estimate calculates to $8,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
121 Comments
Is that interest cost of $705 billion per year or over an extended period of time?
The interesting information that should be given is who is loaning the U.S. the money and receiving the interest. My impression is the Chinese government is loaning about 1/3 of the money so they would collect that proportion of interest.
What are we promising China as collateral on this debt … Kansas? Perhaps China will send one Chinese citizen for each American citizen to Kansas to protect its investment. Of course, this might improve the educational level, commerce, politeness, number of Chinese cars on the street, and give us a second newpaper (in Chinese) to read with our mid-morning rice tea.
$705 billion in total interest! Not per year.
That is a staggering cost. If those troop levels remain like that until 2017.
$2.4 trillion is a lot of money. That is about as much to fund the Department of Health and Human Services for 2 years.
Most of that amount will be new debt. When Reagan took office, the national debt was 700 billion, and there has only been one Democratic President since – that guy who balanced the budget – so who is doing all this spending? The same people who profess every election to be in favor on “fiscal conservatism” – hand me a barf bag please.
Some how I think DHHS wishes they had $2.4 trillion each two years to play with. Maybe they could have afforded to hire a proven bio-chemical company to come up with a stage two Anthrax serum. Instead of having to hire a start-up company with limited experience, no resources, small staff and no means to gain more funding if needed. But then it is fortunate there has not been another Anthrax attack since 2001?dodge that bullet huh? Yeah it is beyond time to take away the credit cards in Washington, big government conservatives do not seem to do any better then the big government liberals! Kind of makes you wonder if Paris Hilton is running the war?
Paris Hilton seems to be running the “budget” office. I think Rambo has been running the War and State Dept.
If the great uniter, decider had engaged the entire country in the war by rationing gas, price and salary freezes, a selective draft, increasing the mpg requirements etc ….. —- it would be over by now or never would have occurred …… but no, the admin choose a campaign of fear to unite us —–
…. with his track record it is easy to see he could not have been an “Officer and a Gentleman” much less a leader when he supposedly served in the AF National Guard, his life has been one of pampered mediocrity at best or worse ……….. I know the type very well ……….
Nathan Hale, one of our country’s greatest patriots, at the gallows said “Give me liberty or give me death.” Andrew Sullivan, on the Bill Maher show this week, says something along the lines of “Bush/Cheney instead would give away every liberty in order to protect every citizen from even the fear of death.” What a contrast.
Don’t you wish Rambo was running the war? He acted conservatively in his actions yet was the utmost effective in his goal. He only took on the “bad guys” and left the rest of the world alone and solved the problems he could solve. Yet if you did not notice he did not going looking for every fight there was to find.You had nothing to fear from him less you attacked him or someone close to him. But oh if you did cause him to act, he was “your worst nightmare!”. Heee I am a John Wayne fan too! Now there would be a ticket for 08, Rambo and John Wayne! But then that is pretty bold talk for a one eyed SOB!
OK, writerdog, you caught me using an inexact metaphor. Back to the drawing board . . .
Now if we want to compare fictional character as to who is running the war, I can see Cheney as Elmer Fudd. Running around with a large gun and thinking the best way to get your prey is to blast way at everything in sight. (OMG were we talking about running a war or going hunting?) Ahh Now who would Bush be? YES Willy E. Coyote, wants bigger and better weapons, never pays for them just puts them on credit. Is for the most part ineffective in his actions and the prime enemy seems to always get away! Leaving him battered and bruised, yet is not smart enough to realize he is taking the wrong track so he keeps doing the same things.
A quick note, then, unfortunately, off to Missouri for the funeral of a close friend.
The is now an attempt in congress to increase GI benefits, especially education benefits. This is being pushed by the Democrats and opposed by both Bush and the Republicans.
And the 28%ers still think both this president and what’s left of his supporters in congress are helping Americas finest. I would beg to differ, and so would every member of congress voting FOR the bill.
It is alot of money and we will be paying it back for a generation or more. It will not be a visible bill because all war spending is a “supplemental” and off budget but we will have to pay for it none the less. It will defintely tie the hands of the next administration when it comes to any social spending or health care reforms.
“$2.4 trillion is a lot of money. That is about as much to fund the Department of Health and Human Services for 2 years.”Is that true? Joe! You said it; back it up. Kelly? You keep up with such things; what is HHS’s budget.
How many decades would that fund SCHIP for?
At least some are trying to help us here in the US. I doubt you will see this in the WE or other mainstream outlets….since it does not fit their “narrative”.
Iraqis send donations for San Diego fire victims.
http://op-for.com/2007/10/what_goes_around_comes_around.html
COB figures are always wrong.
Show me a single estimate, from the Congressinal Budget Office, that even came close to actual projections, would you please?
It could be more, it could be less, but COB is wrong. That is a rather safe bet.
Furthermore, the deficit has just about vanished. As long as we don’t fall into another deep recesssion, or as long as Charlie Rangle and Hillary don’t mess up the supply-side incentives in the current tax code, there might not be a need for “deficit spending” to finance defense.
Furthermore, there is a cost for doing nothing. That cost is unknown but also unlimited. Our economy would be in horrible shape if we were suffering frequent terrorist attacks at home. Get mad at the enemy for causing these expenses, don’t get mad at our leaders for defending us.
Finally, CBO is including the salaries of all the people who are currently “in country.”
That is ridiculous. We would have to pay most of those people anyway, no matter their location.
CBO not COB lol
The American People elected a congress to stop this mind boggling deadly nonsense, so why is it still there?
Also weekly billions are being spent on 3 dollar gasoline, which are directly related the threat of waring { Iran, who is not threatening anybody } in the Middle East by our Israeli “Buddies.”
Oh, and Senator Dodd has now decided that this mind boggling war is a bad idea and stated so on Meet The Press.
“The deficit has almost vanished”? What cereal box are you reading off of?
“”The deficit has almost vanished”? What cereal box are you reading off of?”
Shit, I want what YOU are smokin’.
I said the deficit, not the debt, and as a percentage of GDP, the deficit is very small.
The deficit is currently 1.2% of GDP:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071011/budget_deficit.html?.v=17
“Deficits are caused by periodic recessions” JFK
The last recession began in Clintons final year of office.
Paul, you are lying as always. Do you get paid to look this stupid and tell lies that only 24% of the population buy into because they had a habit of licking lead paint as children?
DougI can always count on you to make your side look childish.
FarmgirlGave all that stuff up, years ago.
Greenhouse grass causesGreenhouse gas!
LOL
Paul, you see record deficits as a good thing despite the fact that it means foreign countries are getting American dollars which they can reinvest in their economy while our tax revenue falters and our infrastructure fails. You are incompetent on economic matters but you are a fan of Bush who has increased the national debt more than all Presidents since the 50s combined and has taken Clinton’s surplus and turned it into a massive deficit. Nobody with a basic education on economic matters believes your bullshit.
Doug
You don’t have a single fact to support your emotional post, above.
We have RECORD Federal Revenues, right now, do we not?
Recessions DO cause deficits, JFK said so, and our last recesssion DID start under Clinton.
Also, when we sell our debt, overseas, they are giving US money that is being repaid at historically low interest rates.
Furthermore, inflation adjusted figures would require you to cut the current debt in half, to compare it to 14 years ago.
Cut the debt to 25% of current levels, to compare it to the value of the dollar 28 years ago.
DougSwitch to decaff, would you?
The deficit is only 1.2% of GDP, and I predict the deficit will go away, completely, next year, as long as we are not attacked again.
As a percent of GDP, the debt is manageable, and is being paid off at very low rates of interest, for the most part:
http://www.sdi.gov/lc_debt.htm
Funny, isn’t it, how we never heard this “percentage of GNP” argument when Newt, Todd, Delay et al were drum-beating for fiscal conservatism? The percentage of GNP argument doesn’t get to the more important question of what percent of our annual federal government goes just for debt relief. Even if the deficit next year is zero, which it won’t be, that comment distracts attention from the more important observation that we are still paying now for Republican deficits starting with Reagan, and it doesn’t counter the argument that what the deficit really constitutes is a birth tax on the newest generation, because they are going to have to pay it – unless you are a believer in the “starve the beast” philosophy of neo-conservatives (who have no intention of balancing the budget or paying off the debt) – that’s what all this profligate deficit spending is all about.
Well… thanks Phil I appericate the degrading blog. I really don’t want my money going to this war till I die… I’m already trying to pay for college… Lord help me!!
Paul, Great Britain has a long history of running trade deficits, look at the lovely economic situation they are in now. Our trade imbalances use American money to invest in foreign infrastructure so they can compete with us for jobs further weakening our economy. Our national debt is $9 trillion for which we must waste over $400 billion which could have been used to invest in America. I’m sure $400 billion probably sounds like chump change to you but for a reality based person it’s a lot. The cost of the war is over $2 trillion dollars, again that’s a lot of money to a person who isn’t insane but you are a different story.
Your appeal for low interest rates means a weak American dollar that is on the verge of collapse as people turn to Euros for economic stability. Our economy is propped up on the fact that oil is traded using the American dollar. Should OPEC switch to the Euro then there is no need for foreign nations to invest in the weak dollar which is an increasing economic burden on them.
By the way, if you are going to link to a chart try to use something that has been updated in the past 12 years. I know you are a bit behind on everything but the year is 2007, not 1995. If you’d like the more up to date figures in 2006 the percentage of the GDP was 1.9%.
I know as a neo-liberal you could care less since it’s just the wasting of other people’s money but you guys have a proven track record of borrow and spend and weakening the economy. I let the facts and the record speak for themselves. No sensible person would run their household budget like you guys run the government’s budget.
“The deficit is only 1.2% of GDP, and I predict the deficit will go away, completely, next year, as long as we are not attacked again.”
Paul – the Republics have been predicting that for years. They have been consistently wrong all along; you simply continue their false predictions.
“By 1996, debt held by the public had declined to 49.9% of GDP.”
Hey Paul; it had been rising before 1996 and it ws Clinton who reversed that. I find it amusing that your link only goes to 1996.
Ben, perhaps that’s why Paul still blames Clinton for everything, he’s stuck in 1996.
If the Democrats would just not pass any more funding bills for the Iraq war, the war would end almost immediately.
Call or write your Democrat Congressmen who you elected in 2006 to end the Iraq war, and tell them to keep their campagin promise now!
The Dems CAN end the war!
They just choose not too.
This is Wichita, we don’t have any representation.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
The Democrats don’t care about Americans getting killed and wounded in Iraq.
It’s slowing down a bit, but since May 2007 when the Democrats authorized even more money for killing Americans, 461 more Americans have been killed, and 2,758 more have been injured.
All because the Democrats voted to fund the Iraq war some more.
Max, (Hi, Glyn!),
Find us a Democratic Representative in our area whom we may contact and we’ll be happy to do just that! I’m in Wichita, Kansas, and those who pledged to represent the people of Kansas are marching lockstep with bushco or busy elsewhere. I’m still writing, emailing and calling but I don’t have high expectations of any of our elected representatives. I don’t think they are smart or capable enough for me to expect much.
“If the Democrats would just not pass any more funding bills for the Iraq war, the war would end almost immediately.”
NOT TRUE MAX. BushDaBum has already maintained that he will continue his war. However, he has also made it clear that he will then undersupply the troops and then, with you at his side, blame the Democrats for their peril.
BushDaBum has already maintained that he will continue his war. However, he has also made it clear that he will then undersupply the troops and then, with you at his side, blame the Democrats for their peril.Posted by: Ben | October 28, 2007 at 01:24 PM
Of course.
And nobody ever went broke betting on Bush’s stupidity. Like the Democrats, I have no doubt that Augustus Stupidus would do exactly as you predict.
What I said IS true Ben.
The Majority Democrat Congress has voted to fund this war in Iraq since last May, and they will do it again by Thanksgiving.
If the Democratic Congress does NOT fund the war, Bush has a very limited time before he must pull the troops out.
Blaming everything on Bush is no excuse for your Dem Majority Congress’ failure to stop funding this war.
You can hide behind Bush all you want, but Congress is responsible for Congress.
Max – as you are aware; the Reukes can block things in the Senate. So, initiatives the Democrats have attempted have been blocked there.
That said, I agree with you that the Democrats should bite the bullet and simply refuse funding. Then let BushDaBum and his Repukes find the money.
Maybe Limbaugh could hold a telethon.
There are only 50 Democrats in the Senate, 48 Republicans. The Democrats only have a majority because Lieberman and Sanders caucus with the Democrats. Lieberman is no liberal on foreign issues so he often sides with the Republicans on war funding issues. That means if two other Democrats votes with the Republicans it doesn’t matter if all other Democrats vote for a bill, it won’t pass and they certainly won’t have enough to override a veto or filibuster.
It’s true that the Democrats have the choice not to fund the war.
The key reason is that the Democratic Party hold the leadership positions in both the house and the Senate.
They can simply refuse to bring a measure to the floor of the house or Senate for a vote.
But they won’t, they haven’t and won’t do so in the future because they lack the courage of their convictions.
All talk – no action.
With a couple trillion not owed, I think the looming SS problem could have been managed.
When liberals in the media or in politics start being alarmed about the national debt, it means just one thing: They want higher taxes. The thought of reducing spending would never cross their minds.
As we are endlessly reminded, the federal government’s debt has reached record levels during the Bush administration. That enables the liberal media to use their favorite word — “crisis” — and adds urgency to doing their favorite thing, raising taxes.
Since we have a larger population than ever and a larger national income than ever, it should hardly be surprising that we also have a larger national debt than ever. But what does it mean?
Donald Trump probably has a bigger debt than I do — and less reason to worry about it. Debt means nothing unless you compare it to your income or wealth.
How does our national debt today compare to our national income? It is lower than it was a decade ago, during theClinton administration, when liberals did not seem nearly as panicked as they seem today.
As a percentage of the national income, the national debt today is less than half of what it was in 1950 and about where it was in 1940 — back in those “earlier and simpler times.”
If someone were to produce a political dictionary, “crisis” would be defined as a desire to pass a law and “national debt” would be defined as a desire to raise taxes. And the two in combination would mean a desire to discredit the existing administration.
If it seems that raising taxes is the only way to reduce the national debt, at least when so much spending is mandated by “entitlement” programs, that only shows the need for an economic dictionary. “Taxes” is one of those treacherous words with more than one meaning, enabling politicians to shift back and forth between meanings when they talk.
Unless spending is reduced, then of course more tax revenues are necessary in order to reduce a deficit or bring down a debt. But tax revenues and tax rates are two different things, even though the same word — “taxes” — is used to refer to both.
What “tax cuts” cut is the tax rate. But tax revenues can rise, fall, or stay the same when tax rates are cut. Everything depends on what happens to income.
Tax revenues rose after the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s and the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s because incomes rose. Incomes are likewise rising during the Bush administration today.
If Congress can just reduce the rate of increase in spending, rising tax revenues can reduce the deficit and eventually eliminate it. But of course that will not give liberals an excuse to raise tax rates or even to denounce “tax cuts for the rich.”
There was a time when the purpose of taxes was to pay for the inevitable costs of government. To the political left, however, taxes have long been seen as a way to redistribute income and finance other social experiments based on liberal ideology.
Given that agenda, it is hardly surprising that some of the biggest spending liberals can go into hysterics over the national debt, especially when that debt exists under a conservative administration of the opposite party.
This does not mean that nothing needs to be done about the national debt or about our tax system. A lot could be done about both — but it would not be what liberals want done.
Promoting the growth of the national economy would be one of the fastest and best ways of reducing the national debt. We could, for example, stop letting little bands of self-righteous activists stifle the building of homes or businesses under “open space” laws or stop the drilling of oil off-shore, on-shore, or anywhere else.
As for taxes, we could stop taxing productivity and start taxing consumption. After all, productivity is what makes a society more prosperous.
Someone who is adding to the total wealth of this country is not depriving you of anything. But someone who is consuming the nation’s wealth, without contributing anything to it, is. Yet our tax system penalizes those who are producing wealth in order to subsidize those who are only consuming it.
Tax reform is overdue, national debt or no national debt.
The US should just surrender to terrorists.
If they blow up some more buildings and kill some more Americans in some major city, who cares?
It’s cheaper just to clean up messes like the WTC and the Pentagon, then it is to wage war to chase down terrorists.
J M<——–flirting with his agreement
Growth, and only growth, can solve our problems.
Taxes kill growth!
By the way, Phantom, if you have a “cure” for Social Security, I would love to hear it.
Other than Jack Kevorkian killing off an awful lot of retired people, there is NO cure for our SUCCESS!
People are living longer.
Social Security is in “trouble” because of our success, as a society.
You are the one who is insane Capn America.
How dare you put yourself, your party, and your political beliefs to use as justification of robbery!
Your real name should be ROBIN HOOD. You are truly stealing from the rich and giving it yes giving it as cold hard cash to the poor. Earned Income Credit is nothing more than redistribution of wealth.
Totally unearned, undeserved, and contrary to a free America where you work for what you earn.
You will be the death of the USA.
October 11, 2007HP-603
Joint Statement ofHenry M. Paulson, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury,And Jim Nussle, Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
on Budget Results for Fiscal Year 2007
SUMMARY
The Administration today released the September 2007 Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government. The statement shows the actual budget totals for the fiscal year that ended September 30, 2007, as follows:
A deficit of $163 billion;
total receipts of $2,568 billion; and
total outlays of $2,731 billion.”This year’s budget results demonstrate the remarkable strength of the U.S. economy. This strength has translated into record-breaking revenues flowing into the U.S. Treasury and a continued decline in the federal budget deficit. President Bush’s fiscal policies have helped promote economic growth and steady job creation. We must keep taxes low and restrain federal spending to continue the economic expansion in the wake of credit market disruptions and the housing market downturn. Shrinking the budget deficit and keeping the economy strong are critical elements to help us address the coming wave of entitlement spending. We must work together to find a solution to this problem, or we will cripple future generations with obligations they cannot afford.”
- Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr
Just imagine where we would be if we did NOT have two wars? We get out of Iraq (any candidate?), we might just see an end to the deficit too!
Shhhh American Way, can’t let the Libs know the truth now…the will start to panic and come up with the some alternative conclusion that the tax cuts didn’t work.
They don’t WANT the tax cuts to work. If they worked, then they have no reason to sock it to the “rich”!
“Growth, and only growth, can solve our problems.
Taxes kill growth!”
Explain then, Paulie, wy the economy grew and we balanced the budget under Clinton.
Explain then, Paulie, wy the economy grew and we balanced the budget under Clinton.
Posted by: Ben | October 28, 2007 at 05:42 PM
I’ll be flip about it Ben and state that Clinton succeeded because he had a wise Republican Congress.
Actually, the methods used by Clinton were quite different. He slashed the military nearly to the bone and had the good fortune of the “Dot Com” boom to boost the economy.
Both methods work and one can argue about the avenues in achieving a balance economy.
However, paying off the deficit under Bush’s tax cuts is far more impressive in my opinion as it shows that tax revenues are indeed stimulated by increased incentives to private business when they are allowed to use their money the way they see fit, rather than the government benefiting.
It’s all about who you want to keep your money.
The government or yourself.
I prefer to keep my own money as I think I do a better job of handling it than the government.
Remember the Clinton tax increase of 1993? It was, at the time, the largest tax increase in history –a whopping $240 billion of our hard earned cash went to government over five years. That was in dollars nearly 15 years ago!
Stands to reason: Collect more taxes, revenue goes up!
While the deficits remain relatively high in dollar figures, especially compared to the surplus the federal government ran in 2000, the deficit as a percentage of GDP is still relatively small.
Below are some points that you may not hear from administration sources or administration foes.
(1) The deficit projections are based upon current law, meaning that any AMT patch that is passed for this year will increase the deficit for both fiscal years 2007 and 2008. Also, education tax credits may be expanded for both fiscal years, and for fiscal year 2008, it is likely that the itemized deduction for sales taxes paid will be extended. Furthermore, for fiscal year 2008, the expiration of S-CHIP may cause differences between reality and what the White House projects.
(2) The main driver of the declining deficit is the surging revenues that the federal government is collecting. As many critics of the administration have conceded, corporate profits have been skyrocketing, going from 1.2 percent of GDP in 2003 to 2.7 percent of GDP in 2006. One consequence of this will be surging corporate tax revenues at both the state and federal level. Furthermore, individual income tax collections have risen dramatically this year, as well, as a result of a healthy stock market, increased profits for businesses that file under the individual income tax, and moderately growing wages. Unfortunately, a growing problem is that employer-provided health insurance is an ever-increasing part of employee compensation, and it is tax-free, which in the end merely forces individual tax rates up.
(3) Some have argued that not all Americans are sharing in the growing economy, citing statistics that corporate profits are at all-time highs and income inequality is rising. When this occurs, however, federal revenues will grow faster than normal, for two reasons. First, corporate income is often subject to taxation at two stages – first in the form of the corporate income tax and second in the form of dividends and capital gains income on the individual income tax side. Second, because the federal income tax code is highly progressive, if more income is being earned by those at the top of the income scales, there will be higher tax collections than if that money were earned by those at the bottom. (This is why tax collections can fall as a result of minimum wage increases as they are merely off-budget forms of income redistribution.)
(4) Finally, some have suggested that the higher revenues are the result of the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003. While there is obviously some feedback from tax cuts in the form of higher economic growth, most economists will agree that this feedback is not substantial enough to actually increase revenues. Because the income tax system now contains a large amount of business income and investment income, lower tax rates on these sources of income, which are typically more tax-sensitive than labor supply, can have a significant feedback effect. However, this feedback effect still will likely not be strong enough to offset the costs of the tax cuts in the long run. (In the short run, if Keynesian policies of business cycle control like tax rebate checks are actually effective, then revenues may increase as a result of a tax cut or government spending increase.) But throughout this whole debate over the Laffer Curve, one needs to ask the question: should tax revenue maximization even be the goal of a government in a free society?
Tax Foundation
It’s all Clintons fault, if he hadn’t handed over an economy with (bush quote) “surpluses as far as the eye can see”, bush couldn’t have passed tax cuts and signed off on budgets which have now given us Deficits as far as the eye can see!
I think that, sine the RICH support the Republicans and their policies, they ought to pay for the war. I think we should impose a special “Republican War Tax” on all people that make over $100,000 a year or twice that for a couple.
Devaluing the dollar to pay down your deficits is a trick as old as the GOP.
I would submit that creating an additionasl 2+ trillion to the deficit, does not put us into a position where we can manage the SS problem, without of course,raising taxes.
BenAs I have told you many times, and I think you kind of agree, when it suits you:
Presidents are only ONE factor in the economy!
Actually, Presidents have very little to do with the economy, as long as they don’t do anything really stupid.
The baby boom generation entered its peak earning and investing years under Bill Clinton.
Read Harry Dent, “The Great Boom Ahead” and “The Roaring 2000’s” to get a very accurate picture of the Clinton economy, writen prior to the actual time period.
Would YOU explain, please, what economic program Clinton ever passed that would account for the economy, under Clinton?
Yes, in his final year in Office, we had the beginning of the Clinton Recession.
However, other than a modest tax hike, that did not completely reverse the Reagan Supply-Side tax cuts, and other than being FORCED to sign off on Welfare Reform, Clinton doesnt have a SINGLE economic program on the books to account for anything, does he?
I think that, sine the RICH support the Republicans
I think we should impose a special “Republican War Tax” on all people that make over $100,000 Posted by: Kev
Cute Kev, but not true. Not all rich support the republicans. Your liberal blog leaders can attest to that.
Further, I would support a special war tax. Everyone pay.Flat tax. Create a national sales tax to fund it (otherwise you have to hire IRS agents and increase paperwork for all of us).
YOU would support the war effort with your money, right? I mean, HIllary voted for the war, and has now stated we will be in Iraq until today’s 12 year olds can die over there.
So your party supports continuation of the war, which you stated needs funding.
If only poor people are serving, it makes sense to allow poor people to help fund their boys war.
Devaluing the dollar to pay down your deficits is a trick as old as the GOP.
Posted by: The Phantom
Wow! The republicans did this???????
I suppose all those other countries which trade with us, or us the George Washington didn’t have anything to do with lowering the value of our nearly worthless money?
If the poor are the vast majority risking life and limb, how can anyone in good conscience state that they and their offspring (God Willing!) should also shoulder the financial burden?
2+ trillion to the deficit, does not put us into a position where we can manage the SS problem, Posted by: The Phantom
Democrats now admit there is a PROBLEM with SS??? Wow, just a couple of months ago bloggers on these blogs were adamant there is NOTHING WRONG WITH SS. As was the leaders of the democrat party.
What happened? Is this like changing your mind on the war too?
You didn’t answer me last night on this either.
“Actually, Presidents have very little to do with the economy, as long as they don’t do anything really stupid”
Which Bush has done with the too-deep tax cuts and elective war in Iraq.
“However, other than a modest tax hike, that did not completely reverse the Reagan Supply-Side tax cuts”
Gee, Paulie, the Republics derided it as the most mammoth tax hike in the history of the universe that would cripple the economy for time immemoriable.
Paulette – the basic premise of the economy under Clinton was a combination of restrictive FISCAL policy that allowed the Fed to have an accomodating MONETARY policy.
Loose monetary policy led to low short-term rates; restrictive fiscal policies led to low long-term rates.
Am Way
NO, you are wrong without really saying it correctly:
Yes, “Collect more taxes and revenues go up”
However, the BEST way to collect more tax REVENUE is to decrease tax RATES!—–Think of it this way:
You just inherit a book store.
However, in order to quit your regular job and live off your new business, you decide you need to double your profits on your books.
Since average retail “mark up” is 100% (No clue with publishing, this is a guess) — You decide you must increase the retail price of your books by 50%. In other words, you WANT a 200% profit.
Will your profits go up by 100%?
Hell no.
We will go to Barns and Noble, Borders or somewhere else.
Likewise, when you increase my taxes, millions of people, just like me, will decide that the “price” of hard work is too high, and we will not work as hard.
“Screw you” in other words.
After our expenses are met, we work for investment dollars and enjoyment.
We are not slaves for the government, and if you mistreat us, we won’t work as hard.
should also shoulder the financial burden?
Posted by: The Phantom
We are alllllllll Americans. Right? Am I right?
We should allllllllllll share the burdens our nation face.
I’m beginning to think “all” only applies if you are wanting something for free around here.
Paulie – you are mis-applying the Laffer curve. We are far on the ‘left-hand’ side of the curve; an increase in rates will increase revenue. Back when JFK took over from Republican Eisenhouer and we had 90% rates we were on the right-hand side of the curve. Then it works the way you describe..
You just inherit a book store.
Econ101
Well I guess you can say I am wrong if you are giving me a bookstore. Is there a coffee shop in it? There better be. White chocolate Mocha with an extra shot of expresso. Only way to fly!
BenHog wash!
MOST of the budget is non-descretionary.
There is very little a current Congress or President can do to alter the vast majority of our expenses.
Also, demographis played a HUGE role under Clinton. As I said, the Boomers hit their peak spending and earning yeats. Every economist recognizes the impact of this variable.
Also, Drumroll: REAGAN played a huge role in the Clinton economy.
Why not take a look at the Carter economy before you brag on Clinton, would you?
The current mortgage crisis is also a symptom of the low interest rates, but as I heard someone state ” a bubble was inevitable, it just turned out to be in the housing market”. You reap what you sow.
And libs:
Federal Revenue is at an ALL TIME HIGH!
Explain to me how tax RATE cuts hurt the economy?
Also, folks the proportion of federal revenues paid by the “rich” goes UP after tax RATE cuts.
The proportion of federal revenues paid by the “rich” goes DOWN after tax RATE increases.
In other words, the “RICH” respond to incentives, just like everyone else.
The Rich don’t need income.
TAX income and they will do WITHOUT income.
And — the Treasury will get less tax revenue.
And — businesses suffer do to less consumption and less investment.
Why did the Reagan miracle, miraculously skip over bush I term? That truly is a miracle!
Paulie – not in real terms; and DEFINITELY not enough to keep up with Bush’s wasteful spending habits.
BenLaffer is quoted, recently, as saying that a tax rate cut TODAY would increase revenues.
He made that statement in response to a question about a “flat tax”
Therefore, I suggest that YOU are wrong about the Laffer curve.
Even Greenspan, who initially supported the cuts, has acknowledged they were too deep.
I’d like to see his entire quote; especially if it was in the context of dramatically changing the base upon which it would be levied.
Liberals support high taxes out of envy, and not out of any concern for the national good.
Proof is in this thread.
Tax revenue is at an all-time high, yet liberals don’t simply want revenue to fund the government.
Liberals mis-use the tax code to “punish” the “rich.”
The current mortgage crisis is also a symptom of the low interest rates, You reap what you sow.Posted by: The Phantom
Actually, the crises is the result of rates going UP, which caused ARMS to adjust upward – forcing poor credit owners into default.
I don’t think any market can go up forever. The housing market was due for an adjustment (remember the 1970’s when farm land value decreased?). I honestly don’t know how young people can afford homes these days. Been to both coasts and it is unbelievable what they want for crackerbox homes.
Reap what you sow? REIT’s did me good for a decade. Many have made lot’s of money – including flippers and seniors downsizing.That’s what investing is all about.
I won’t cry to the government to solve it or pay my way out. It’s no one’s fault.
Tax Surpluses in the Clinton years was a bloated tax base.
Whenever I hear surplus, I think, “What the heck is the government doing with my money?”
If they don’t need it and it is a surplus why they heck are they hoarding it.
And why the heck are they asking for extra taxes to get a surplus in the first place?
No thank you, I know what best to spend my money on and not the government.
Tax revenue is at an all-time high, yet liberals don’t simply want revenue to fund the government.
Liberals mis-use the tax code to “punish” the “rich.”
Posted by: Econ101
Your NIC is well earned. But the punishment is just an excuse. Much as Hitler made jews out to be terrible, so they can be exploited.
And their wealth goes to the poor who have done nothing to earn it.
Paulette – FYI. I am one of those who would likely be effected by a tax increase. So it isn’t envy as your falsely claim. It is just that I want a healthy economy down the road and I want my investments to do well. I believe they will do best in a thriving economy with deficits gone.
We didn’t have deficits when your boy took over. We do now.
No thank you, I know what best to spend my money on and not the government.
Posted by: Kansas
Amen, and as was stated above:
one needs to ask the question: should tax revenue maximization even be the goal of a government in a free society?
Kansas – the surpluses were used to service the accumulated debt Clinton inherited from Reagan-Bush.
Red – no, it should not be. Revenues should be raised to pay for those things we have decided to do. That is the problem with Bush and the rest of the Repukes – they have bloated spending even worse than ‘guns-and-butter’ LBJ did.
Kansas – the surpluses were used to service the accumulated debt Clinton inherited from Reagan-Bush.
Posted by: Ben | October 28, 2007 at 06:57 PM
The economy is fiscal Ben, the holdovers don’t really exist but on paper.
You can’t confuse physical year accounting with government fiscal year budgeting, it just doesn’t work that way.
And the military ’savings’ from Clinton slashing the Defense budget resulted in America being vulnerable to terrorists on 9/11.
We saved on the door locks, but eventually, we got robbed.
Ben
“Budget deficits are caused by periodic recessions”
The recession, which started under Clinton at got worse after 9-11, CAUSED the deficits.
Even so, we are about to balance our budget again, due to tax rate cuts.
We didn’t have deficits when your boy took over. We do now.
Posted by: Ben
Not true. We have had deficits and a rising national debt since the great society of LBJ in the 1960’s. I know this, because I believed for YEARS if only we could get a republican congress and president – we could stop the deficit spending. I was wrong.
Both parties have rund eficits and are responsible. It is not an affliction of one single party or president.
Until we all agree on this – we won’t see improvement.
Say what kansas? Are you telling us we can simply repudiate the debt? They never taught me that in accounting or econ.
We need GROWTH.
There is no other way to pay for Social Security or Medicare.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for any Congress or any President to “save” any money for future use.
The only think that government can do is to promote economic growth, because, in the end, only the economy can generate tax revenues.
Econ101,
I know you’re a blunt instrument rather than a sharp one, but the factoid that ‘tax revenues are at an all time high’ is a trivial point, since GDP is ALSO at an all-time high.
Amer-Way – we DID have small surpluses for the last couple of years under Clinton. And, even before that we had OPERATING surpluses. Unfortunately the debt service ate them up.
Had we continued the policies of fiscal restraint we would have made a significant dent in the accumulated debt. In fact, that is what worried Greenspan so much – how would we operate without T-notes and bonds?
Factoring out the Social Security surplus that’s put into the general fund each year, we did not have surpluses in the 1990’s.
We just compounded the Social Security/Medicare fiscal crisis that will hit in 10 years when most of the baby boomers retire.
CFCause and effect:
GDP is at an all time high BECAUSE tax rates were cut!
And, in turn, tax revenues are at an all time high!
It is IMPOSSIBLE for any Congress or any President to “save” any money for future use.
Posted by: Econ101
That’s why I liked personal savings accounts for retirement with my FICA money. Tired of paying 15.3% of MY potential salary going into FICA and Medicrap. It really isn’t going into anything other than the general fund to support current operations.
Nothing for the future. Time to take it OUT of greedy politicans hands.
Econ101,
Here’s a nice thumbnail sketch of the top 1%-ers who now control 21.2% of that “all time high” GDP in the United States:
“This concentration of wealth and income is almost certainly the most intense since the Depression era. The immediate cause is the astounding boom in the financial services industry, especially the happy people in hedge funds and private equity funds, though their poor cousins in investment banking are doing OK, too. About half of the 45 new faces in the 2007 Forbes 400 came from either hedge funds or private equity.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/18/opinion/meyer/main3379624.shtml
Yeah. They’re really working hard and being thrifty, while the rest of us are just really, really lazy. Right.
However, it IS worth noting that the 1%-ers DEFINITELY get their money’s worth when it comes to using the infrastructure, legal, military, and physical, to produce “their” wealth.
They get the revenues, we pay the costs. So much for the “moral” argument, Econ101, AGAINST taxation.
Say what kansas? Are you telling us we can simply repudiate the debt? They never taught me that in accounting or econ.
Posted by: Ben | October 28, 2007 at 07:01 PM
Personal or business debt are different animals from Government debt.
The methods in achieving,paying off or ignoring the debt is completely different.
However, it IS worth noting that the 1%-ers DEFINITELY get their money’s worth when it comes to using the infrastructure, legal, military, and physical, to produce “their” wealth.
They get the revenues, we pay the costs. So much for the “moral” argument, Econ101, AGAINST taxation.
Posted by: CF2K | October 28, 2007 at 07:19 PM
The Muppet poster has failed once again. He failed to realize that most of the revenue for the Government is indeed collected from those high income individuals, corporations and small businesses.
Please do try again though.
Greenspan has been quoted as saying that tax cuts never recoup more than the cuts. I forget the verbatim quote he gave when he was questioned by congress.
I read today that in developed nations we are one of the worst, when it comes to disparity between the rich and poor.
And it getting worse all the time.
What the hell, let them eat cake!
I read today that in developed nations we are one of the worst, when it comes to disparity between the rich and poor.
Posted by: The Phantom | October 28, 2007 at 07:34 PM
Perhaps you can set up a study in the Edwards campaign headquarters in Chapel Hill, an elite, wealthy neighborhood.
You know, that guy Edwards, who is running for President on how he understands the poor and lives in a six million dollar mansion while charging $50,000 a speech on the poor.
That Edwards.
You and he can go in business together on how to help the poor. You could charge for it and make great profits.
What will happen when those who can afford pay taxes become the minority and those who are dirt poor become the majority? Look out 3rd world nations, here we come!
Kinda like Bush undrestands the poor? His hommies, the “haves and the have mores”?
Come on Kansas…let’s see you name a list of Republicans who live an middle income lifestyle and “understand the poor”!
There has been and always will be poor.
Lots of reasons for poverty, but to lay it on the feet of one thing or person in particular (democratic societies) is foolish.
cuse’ my gramatical errors…it’s been a long day…goodnight!
Screw Iraq, Afghanistan, and george bush. Just give me my $8,000.
“Perhaps you can set up a study in the Edwards campaign headquarters in Chapel Hill, an elite, wealthy neighborhood.
You know, that guy Edwards, who is running for President on how he understands the poor and lives in a six million dollar mansion while charging $50,000 a speech on the poor.”
If he were a republican from a poor background who made a fortune as a lawyer you’d have him nominated for sainthood and reserve a burial space next to St. Ronnie
kansas – debt is debt. It still has to be paid. Unfortunately your ‘logic’ (sic) is far too common among Repukes.
In the months before the March 2003 Iraq invasion, the Bush administration estimated the Iraq war would cost no more than $50 billion. The freedom starved Iraqis would welcome us as liberators and shower the troops with roses. The war and Iraq reconstruction would be funded with oil revenue from Iraq oil fields. Will all the rah-rah Republicans please tell me what the hell happened to all these statements made in 2003?
All that from the same propagandists that told us there was WMD and Saddam was an imminent threat to America… Bush/Cheney, et al, believed Saddam’s own BS!! Ha!!
Bush is asking for more Billions for the damned war… I hope Congress tells him NO… He has already spent enough on that lost cause in Iraq..
This war must be stopped NOW, if we want to protect our troops!!
I think Hillary had the right idea with giving $5,000 to every kid in America… They are going to need that $5,000 plus interest, in order to pay for Bush’s glorious War!! Bring it on HIllary!!
I want my $8,000 back
The thousand criminals of the Sedgwick County Empire descended upon us saying our arrows will blot out the sun.
The corrupt woman who fancied herself a god now feels a very human chill crawl up her spine
Now as before,the Beast approaches,confident & savoring the meal to come-
READY TO SNUFF OUT,THAT THERE IS HOPE FOR REASON & JUSTICE…
AND THEY,KANSAS & CORRUPT SEDGWICK COUNTY WILL KNOW THAT FREE MEN STOOD AGAINST A TYRANT,
AND THAT THE GOD OF ABRAHAM,ISSAC & JACOB ALWAYS HEARS THE VOICE OF THE AFFLICTED.
Praise ye the Lord,his MECRY endures forever against the corrupt of SG county!
Pat Herron writes, “Well it looks like the weblog has survived another week without the nasty trolls and NIC stealing liberals who used to dominate.”
ahahahaHAHAHA!!
Good one, Pat. Good one.
When Brownlee comes back to work tomorrow, I’m going to ask him if the troll who stole my nic matches any regular poster’s IP address.
Sleep well . . .
WATCH HOW FAST THIS BLOG “ERASES” UNDER FEAR FROM THE CORRUPT OF SG COUNTY!
C2
“We pay the costs” ??? HUH?
The bottom 50% of wage earners pay virtually nothing, as a percentage of total tax revenues paid to the treasury.
If you punish profits, profits will go away.
Promote profits, profits go up, and people will pay taxes on those profits, as long as the tax is reasonable.
The income tax, for upper income people, is a VOLUNTARY tax, the rich do not NEED income, and income will decline if you punish income.
Pall,Exponential growth on finite resources, that’s your solution? No wonder the environment is such a mess! But then again, republicans can never think past the next quarter.
Jed
Name a resource that we will run out of in the next 50 years, would you please?
Name a resource that we will run out of in the next 50 years, would you please?Posted by: Econ101 | October 29, 2007 at 07:05 PM
The national resource defined by the abillity of Americans to set our own monetary policy.
If I gave your question another 2 seconds of thought I’m sure I could come up with more.