posted on February 16, 2001 09:11:23 AM new
I am well aware of that. However, from where does the money derive to allow and to guarantee the investments to continue?
Regardless of how the surplus is obtained, if such an amount exists and the taxation remains the same or are raised, as Clinton did, is that not excessive taxation?
posted on February 16, 2001 09:20:25 AM new
police salaries, all of those federal programs that you so eagerly have sought ways into accessing, all fed salaries, except postal ones.
By the way, there is no trillion dollar surplus, but since you chose to follow along so obediently the rush party line, I don't mind it's use. What's a few hundred billion one way or the other?
posted on February 16, 2001 09:24:07 AM new
So, if my taxes go to paying the salaries of police officers, then I am self-sustaining. In other words, I pay my own salary.
posted on February 16, 2001 09:24:30 AM new
"Regardless of how the surplus is obtained, if such an amount exists and the taxation remains the same or are raised, as Clinton did, is that not excessive taxation?"
Not necessarily. Witness the situation as it is now in Texas. Tax cuts were made with little concern for the future effect, as a political gesture only. Now Texas is scrambling to keep from having to shut the doors of all state programs and benefits in education, services, and everything else. The great Bush taxcut wiped out their savings account.
posted on February 16, 2001 09:26:05 AM new
"So, if my taxes go to paying the salaries of police officers, then I am self-sustaining. In other words, I pay my own salary".
That would be true if your salary equaled your tax, but it does not, by a long shot. We let you keep the remainder.
posted on February 16, 2001 09:31:19 AM new
Is everything now and forever based on the Texas model?
PS: It just dawned on me. My taxes increased considerably. If my taxes pay my own salary, I should have enabled me to recieve a raise in salary..... that I did not receive.
I need to engage in collective bargaining with myself.
[i]In its most recent projection, the budget office said last month that the total surplus over the next 10 years should be $5.6 trillion. Of that, $2.5 trillion would come from Social Security. By agreement of Republicans and Democrats, that $2.5 trillion is off limits for tax cuts or new spending, and instead will go toward reducing the $3.4 trillion in national debt held by the public.
The remainder of the surplus, $3.1 trillion, is up for grabs.
Even if the two parties use that $3.1 trillion on tax cuts and new spending, the government will effectively run out of debt to pay back within the decade. That is because some of the debt, like savings bonds and 30- year Treasury bonds, either cannot be redeemed before maturity or would be prohibitively expensive to redeem early.
Under one credible path set out by the budget office, the government could find itself with an extra $133 billion in 2010 even after paying off all the redeemable debt and spending the entire non-Social Security surplus. The figure in 2011 would be $434 billion.
If Congress and the Bush administration decided to use the entire non-Social Security surplus for debt reduction, the government would be out of redeemable debt and awash in unused surpluses within five years.[/i]
Greenspan shares his view also, in this article. He's done well by us during the Clinton administration, and I value his opinions.
posted on February 16, 2001 09:39:54 AM new
Used to be that when someone was losing or lost an argument, and ran out of credible options for rebuttal, they would concede. Now they "Texas."
posted on February 16, 2001 09:42:34 AM new
$133 billion is a more realistic figure. Using the trillions does not take money effectively owed into account. It's like adding up your net worth based on the market value of your house without subtracting the amount you still owe.
All of it is dependent in projection on things staying as they were when the projections were made, and is really meaningless for discussion for that reason. Even Greenspan doesn't have clairvoyancy, and the whole country could be on breadlines in a matter of months if there's a crash.
He can only say "IF this-THEN that", but it's always a big IF, especially with an irresponsible leadership bent only on trying again to make failed programs work, apparently just to make a point.
posted on February 16, 2001 09:48:32 AM new
"Is everything now and forever based on the Texas model?"
What short memory!!
Just about all Bush said during his campaign was "we took care of that in Texas" (now it begins to be apparent just who was taken care of).
"Well, HE WAS GOVERNOR for TWO terms"
WRONG. He didn't finish the second term. Is it such a surprise that Texas voted so heavily for him to be president? When I was working it was a common practice to get rid of someone by promoting them. Saved all the hassle of firing them and served the same end.
posted on February 16, 2001 09:56:37 AM new
Look over your shoulder for John Kerry. Good man, and even looks the part, unlike the little clown who should be wearing short pants.
posted on February 16, 2001 10:06:01 AM new
Mike, the re-election record of a politician is irrelevant to how good or poor they are. Surely you won't say that Clinton was good as evidenced by his re-election? Or how about John Ashcroft, who was voted out of his senate seat by a Republican state who voted for Bush?
posted on February 16, 2001 10:12:05 AM new
Got a point JamesO.
RE: Senator John Kerry.
Senator John Kerry is a "Massachusetts" Democrat, an automatic disqualifier, and has a record of voting in favor of many ACLU proposals and oppositions.
posted on February 16, 2001 10:18:57 AM new
Everytime a tax cut is brought up, the Democratic party tries to divide our country by screaming "they're only good for the rich". Well, from what I've seen the Democrats are always wanting to take from those who have earned something and give to those who haven't.
Do any of you really believe that you aren't already paying too much in taxes?
For those of you who don't have an estate of more than $650,000.00 then this tax cut will not affect your personal finances.
For those who are in the top 1-2% in earnings, the deduction of this tax doesn't hurt them much. They can comfortably leave large donations to any charity they wish.
It's the middle income taxpayers who most feel this pinch when a family member dies.
I do not feel I'm being selfish. It is not selfish to want to pass the results of one's efforts down to their family members and not be taken away through an unfair tax.
Everytime a tax cut is brought up, the Democratic party tries to divide our country by screaming "they're only good for the rich". Well, from what I've seen the Democrats are always wanting to take from those who have earned something and give to those who haven't.
who said that?
Do any of you really believe that you aren't already paying too much in taxes?
Republicans seem to want all of the benefit but at no cost to them. Have you been to the national museums, Linda? Who pays for those?
Do you like having the security of a medicare program, a social security program, or even just an office with a person behind a desk to whom you can go complain? Where's that money come from? And on and on, right down to your road to work. Do you imagine that your local and state taxes can give you the cop you call all by themselves, the schools your kids go or went to, even the sewer service to carry your effluence?
For those of you who don't have an estate of more than $650,000.00 then this tax cut will not affect your personal finances.
You just don't get it. In the first place that's not a line of demarkation which makes the entire amount taxable, in the second there are several things that you can do to see to it that there is no outstanding tax, and in the third none of it will effect your PERSONAL finances one lick. You'll be a goner.
For those who are in the top 1-2% in earnings, the deduction of this tax doesn't hurt them much. They can comfortably leave large donations to any charity they wish.
It's the middle income taxpayers who most feel this pinch when a family member dies.
Don't you mean the zero income moochers who can't wait for a family member to croak?
I do not feel I'm being selfish. Oh, YES you are! It is not selfish to want to pass the results of one's efforts down to their family members and not be taken away through an unfair tax.
So do it before you kick the bucket. Besides, they didn't earn it, or anything, why do you want them to benefit from your death? SPEND your kid's inheritence!! Let the bums finally make their own way. If they can't do it then are you a failure as a parent?
posted on February 16, 2001 11:28:31 AM new
One used to but is no longer registered. However, she does occasionally read the posts. Therefore, I will pose the question for her.
She is a beneficiary and stands to inherit property and money she "…..did not work for." Is she a "bum?"
posted on February 16, 2001 04:47:48 PM newDo any of you really believe that you aren't already paying too much in taxes?
When the elder kitten worked at a job on the local economy, the government here took over 40% of his pay, none of which was refunded. By comparison, we paid a far smaller percentage to Uncle Sam and even had a hefty refund(well, hefty for us).
No, I don't think we pay too much in taxes.
That doesn't mean, however, I'd cheerfully pay more just to fund the status quo.
, Texas is all we have.