Today Kerry Pledges to Spend More and Raise Taxes

[El Barto]

Article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=2043&e=1&u=/ap/20040506/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_education)

Is this a surprise?

Spend More, Tax More.

[Clarkmeister]

I like that a lot more than Bush's policy of spending more and not taxing more.

[MMMMMM]

Not necessarily, Clark...if GDP grows sufficiently, total tax revenues can increase overall even with tax cuts, as has happened in the past. Tax cuts lead to increases in GDP. A smaller slice of a bigger pie can be greater than a bigger slice of a smaller pie. For this reason, raising tax rates can actually result in lower tax revenues as GDP growth slows.

[Clarkmeister]

"Not necessarily"

But in this case, it is. GDP hasn't grown nearly enough to cover the cost of Bush's war in Iraq, let alone some of the other things he wants to do. The deficit is growing, not shrinking, despite an unbelievably favorable interest rate environment.

[MMMMMM]

OK, but you must acknowledge that 9/11, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq were unusual and massive expenditures. If anyone has the figures try reworking it to see what the deficit would be without such unusual and large costs.

That for the purposes of seeing if tax cuts really did boost GDP and revenues (or if revenues remained constant or went down). The matter of deficits also depends on expenditures of course, and as above the past few years have been quite unusual in that regard. So you may criticize Bush's overall policies and their financial impact, but that doesn't imply that lowering taxes contributed to the deficit. Also when calculating such things bear in mind that it takes a while for tax cuts to boost the economy, so initially revenues may be down although that trend generally soon reverses, if I'm not mistaken. It wouldn't surprise me if revenues have not yet caught up to cuts. Tom, I believe, has posted data showing that revenues actually increased during the periods of greatest tax cuts in recent decades. Of course there has to be a point of diminishing returns as you move towards any extreme. Where that points is would be an interesting speculation.

[Clarkmeister]

Everyone loves the Laffer curve. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

My problem is that while I think we were justified in most of what we did in Afghanistan (and any sitting President would have done something similar), I think the entirety of our expenditures in Iraq were strictly unnecessary and would not have occurred under a different administration.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I like that a lot more than Bush's policy of spending more and not taxing more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those of us who pay taxes on all of our income prefer to be taxed at a lower rate.

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
My problem is that while I think we were justified in most of what we did in Afghanistan (and any sitting President would have done something similar), I think the entirety of our expenditures in Iraq were strictly unnecessary and would not have occurred under a different administration.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's OK to invade Afganistan, but not Iraq?

That's like saying it's OK to shoot an ugly person, but not a fat person.

Clinton - would not have done either. He would have just fired a rocket at a Iraq hospital, gotten a BJ, and gone back to sleep.

Bush v1.0 - passed on the chance to invade Iraq the first time around (and look where it got us). "American learned its lesson in Vietnam: Stay the hell out of Vietnam!"

Reagan - You damn skippy Reagan would have invaded both. Hell, Iran and Syria would have been done by now too.

Carter - One of the nicest guys in the world. Unfortunatly, one of the dumbest too. Next.

Ford - See Carter.

Nixon - Would have sent Kissenger to kiss their asses, and then would have bombed the hell out of them.

Yada yada yada. True, many presidents would have done things differently, but we've had some pretty bad presidents.

Lisa: "That's a pretty lousy lesson."
Clinton: "Hey, I'm a pretty lousy president!"

[MD2020]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My problem is that while I think we were justified in most of what we did in Afghanistan (and any sitting President would have done something similar), I think the entirety of our expenditures in Iraq were strictly unnecessary and would not have occurred under a different administration.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's OK to invade Afganistan, but not Iraq?

That's like saying it's OK to shoot an ugly person, but not a fat person.

Clinton - would not have done either. He would have just fired a rocket at a Iraq hospital, gotten a BJ, and gone back to sleep.

Bush v1.0 - passed on the chance to invade Iraq the first time around (and look where it got us). "American learned its lesson in Vietnam: Stay the hell out of Vietnam!"

Reagan - You damn skippy Reagan would have invaded both. Hell, Iran and Syria would have been done by now too.

Carter - One of the nicest guys in the world. Unfortunatly, one of the dumbest too. Next.

Ford - See Carter.

Nixon - Would have sent Kissenger to kiss their asses, and then would have bombed the hell out of them.

Yada yada yada. True, many presidents would have done things differently, but we've had some pretty bad presidents.

Lisa: "That's a pretty lousy lesson."
Clinton: "Hey, I'm a pretty lousy president!"

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have known that you'd work a Simpsons reference in.

[andyfox]

The justification for attacking Afghanistan: al-qaeda was determined to be responsible for 9/11, and they were being given sanctuary by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

No such justification exists for Iraq.

I too was in favor of the attack on Afghanistan but not the invasion of Iraq. I see no inconsistency in this position.

[andyfox]

The tax is a reinstatement of the tax rates that were in effect before Bush's tax cuts only on people with incomes of $200,000 a year. For this, we're going to get $3,000,000,000 additional spending per year on education.

It's a far better investment than almost the same amount of money Bush asked for today for Iraq. Where is that $25,000,000,000 going to come from?

[adios]

Thanks for the article on Kerry. The article is just reporting on empty campaign promises from a lame brained jackass.

A few things brought up in this thread. The truth of the matter is that during the Bush administration there has been a large increase in money spent on education when compared to the Clinton budgets. I posted an article the other day that discussed how federal tax revenues are coming in much higher than expected implying that employment growth is on the rise and that expect to hear about smaller budget deficits than predicted. As the US economy grows and the unemployment rate falls expect more of the same. We'd probably be running a budget surplus in 4 years if governemnt spending was frozen at current levels. A former fed governer, Wayne Angel, came out about 6 weeks ago and stated that the budget surpluses in the latter part of the Clinton administration precipitated the recesssion that directly followed. It's silly to think that the Federal government will spend money wisely. Sure if the feds spend oodles of money on something it's bound to do some good but the issue boils down to is this the most effecient use of dollars. Why are federal tax dollars spent on education the best way to go. Another 9/11 will cost a lot more than $87 billion + $25 billion. Establishing a democracy in Iraq is well worth the money and I'm believing that Kerry and his supporters don't think so.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
if GDP grows sufficiently, total tax revenues can increase overall even with tax cuts, as has happened in the past. Tax cuts lead to increases in GDP.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a highly contested issue, presented conveniently as fact. Many economists believe that the types of tax cuts Bush implemented tend to have only the most neglible effect, if any, upon long-term GDP growth. And few will support the assertion that generalized statements of the "tax cuts lead to increases in GDP" are universally true.

[jokerswild]

Baby boomers and generation x will pay their entire working lives and most likely get nothing thanks to Bush's give the wealthy everything policy. Greenspan warns the US public almost daily about it.. Spend more, cut taxes for the rich, and laugh at the middle class suckers that get screwed. This isn't surprising from a silver spooned spolied brat.

[Cyrus]

- There has never been a tax cut in times of war in the whole of American history. Absolutely none! Dubya's is the first, which, if anything, shows that he knows something that all his predecessors didn't. (Actually, there were no tax cuts in times of war in any country's history. I guess Dubya knows something that no other leader in human history knew.)

- Yes, Ronald Reagan introduced a tax cut in his first year in office. So far so good. What the idiotic parrots of the Right are not fond of remembering is that, faced with a tidal wave of red ink, Reagan the very next year instigated the largest tax increase ever in the history of the United States. That's ever, from the 1770s to his time. That record by the way is still unbroken.

...Apart from the above, the rest of your post is fine I guess. I mean the grammar is correct and the syntax is not bad. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MMMMMM]

Nothing in your post contradicts or corrects anything in my post, so I'm just wondering how you went about choosing your post title.

[iblucky4u2]

The real cost of this war is the price America is paying in lost lives and lost freedoms.
To quote Shakespeare
"Like one
Who having into truth, by telling of it,
Made such a sinner of his memory,
To credit his own lie."
The Tempest. Act i. Sc. 2.

The lies this administration has told over and over are now believed by over 50% of the republicans. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. There were no WMDs. No imminent threat.

On top of that, OSB is still on the loose and Al Queda is still doing it's thing.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
There were no WMDs. No imminent threat.



[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, Hitler was no imminent threat to the US either. I'm sure you hate FDR because of that.

W

[jdl22]

Hitler was attacking our allies when we got involved. Saddam posed a threat neither to us nor our allies.

Contrast that with Cheney saying that Saddam posed a "mortal threat" to the US and it gets interesting.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Hitler was attacking our allies when we got involved. Saddam posed a threat neither to us nor our allies.

Contrast that with Cheney saying that Saddam posed a "mortal threat" to the US and it gets interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Democrats want to wait till we are attacked then tax us more and complain about us being unprepared. The Republicans want to prevent future attacks and give our tax money back without casting the blame where it truly lies. One seems reasonable the other seems like, well, a bunch of scared whining democrats.


Jimbo

[Clarkmeister]

I don't trust any administration stupid enough to really believe Iraq was ever going to attack us. Further, I don't trust any administration that was willing to lie about the level of risk Iraq posed.

[Jimbo]

I never suggested you trust them, just be assured they know more than either of us do and certainly have our best interets in mind.

Jimbo

[Clarkmeister]

"just be assured they know more than either of us do and certainly have our best interets in mind."

Big Brother is alive and well apparently.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Big Brother is alive and well apparently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny you should put it like that Dave. Our individual freedoms are much safer in the hands of any republican administraion compared to even the best possible democratic administration.

Jimbo

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Big Brother is alive and well apparently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny you should put it like that Dave. Our individual freedoms are much safer in the hands of any republican administraion compared to even the best possible democratic administration.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

In light of the fact that many freedoms and rights have disappeared because of this administration, I wonder how you can actually type that.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
In light of the fact that many freedoms and rights have disappeared because of this administration, I wonder how you can actually type that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you still sore about being incorrect regarding the "pause in operations" during the Iraq invasion over a year ago? Let it go Dave, let it go! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Jimbo

[Clarkmeister]

The funny thing is, you should be the first one bashing this administration, given your beliefs. Republicans in general should be outraged at the way the core party beliefs of individual freedom and less government have been relentlessly assaulted at every turn by the Bush administration. I've voted republican in every presidential election since I turned 18, and I am outraged at what this man has done.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
The funny thing is, you should be the first one bashing this administration, given your beliefs. Republicans in general should be outraged at the way the core party beliefs of individual freedom and less government have been relentlessly assaulted at every turn by the Bush administration. I've voted republican in every presidential election since I turned 18, and I am outraged at what this man has done.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you are right but as I have gotten older I've also become much more selfish. As long as they do not infringe on my very specific personal rights and they are doing it in order to stop crooks, terrorists or whomever else I consider it OK. Probably not reasonable but hey, I haven't broken a law in decades so it becomes alright in my book. I'm not the type to protest for starving kids in Appalachia while eating a three course meal either.


Jimbo

[Cyrus]

"I've voted Republican in every presidential election since I turned 18, and I am outraged at what this man [George W Bush] has done."

Well, Dubya sure is for Big Brother and against "petty" individual(istic) freedoms, which makes him less of a political conservative than he thinks he is, but at least he is a fiscal conservative : Let's face it, last week he only asked for $25 billion for Iraq more when he has Congress eating outta the palm of his hand; he could've asked for triple that.

Be thankful (and keep voting 'em in).

[John Cole]

You may want to look closer at how the money is spent for "education."