An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

I'm sure AndyFox does of fine job of helping his company stay profitable. Also Cyrus is probably able to balance a checkbook (albeit with a little help from Quicken) and Pokerjo probably can keep track of his piggy bank on most sunny days. What they don't seem to understand is why lowering taxes is good for the people of this country as well as for our economy.

Taxes have been lowered across the board. The current defecit projection has been lowered by 60 billion dollars. Inflation is stable and low. The total number of employed Americans has been steadily increasing. Although the dollar is currently at a 9 year low against most currencies this does help exports and at the same time helps to curb imports without adding any pesky tarrifs. The Fed is carefully increasing interest rates at a pace designed to keep inflation in check while at the same time not slowing our economic growth (which as a byproduct will slowly increase the dollars' strength).

If anyone can describe how the current economic climate can be described as anything less than spectacular considering the increased spending required to continue the fight against terrorism I'd love to hear their explanation.

Jimbo

PS: Now West, Gray and Christina will have no clue as to whether our country is doing well or not so any responses from them or other radical liberals are best left ignored.

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

I think the problem most liberals have regarding tax cuts is that they don't understand the dynamic nature of our vibrant economic engine. They constantly hear poiticians opposed to tax cuts (usually invoking class warfare tactics - which are extremely divisive and harmful to the country) saying things like .... we have to find a way to pay for these tax cuts .... meaning if we cut taxes here we need to raise them here .... which is a static view ..... They hear people like Robert Riesch (sp?) say things like .... supply side economics doesn't work ..... Well I am sorry, but I have seen with my own eyes that it does work. Reagan's tax cuts nearly tripled revenues in the 80's. (The fact that spending increases outstripped the revenue increase is beside the point ..... cutting taxes increased federal revenues). This fact is easily verifiable.

So the two diametricaly opposed sides are dynamic vs static. The way we will overcome the deficit is by growing our way out of it .... this along with spending cuts .... which with the Republicans more firmly in control I would expect to see .... to the right programs.

Now there are those who will point to the Clinton tax increases and the subsequent economic expansion of the 90's. What happened then was the debt was refinanced using short term interest rates which were at historic lows. This along with Republican (Republicans were swept into power gaining control of Congress - where all spending is initiated - for the first time in over 40 years) spending decreases (little was actually cut only the rate at which spending increased was slowed) aided the economy to grow in spite of the largest tax increase in history that Clinton gave us. (This was of course after promissing a middle class tax cut and then telling the nation that he had worked harder than anything in his life to make it happen but he just couldn't find a way to do it).

Simply put tax cuts work by letting people keep more of their own money which creates more demand for products which leads to more jobs which leads to more people working creating more demand etc. This broadens the tax base and generates greater revenue. And this is what we are seeing at the present time thanks to W's sound economic policy of pushing tax cuts through Congress.

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

My question about the american ecomomy is this, what is the largest amount of national debt that the U.S. ecomomy and govermentment can sustain. Is it $30000 per american, $60000, or something higher like $300000 per american or some other number. One has to wonder what will happen when the national debt surpasses that amount.

I think that we need to consider this question first, which I doubt we can find an answer to, but I would suspect some economist could give us a good idea of what this is within some reasonable order of magnitude. Then once we have this number we need to keep in mind that while tax cuts may work in the short term they are part of an overall economic strategy by the governemnt that has done nothing to curb the national debt, and I have no evidence that they will do anything until its too late. I'm not claiming that tax cuts casue the debt to rise, but that the overall governmental tax rates and spending policies lead to the debt rising.

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

"What they don't seem to understand is why lowering taxes is good for the people of this country as well as for our economy."

I understand it. Do you understand it's better for some people than for others, depending on which taxes are lowered and by how much? If lowering them are just plain good, period, why not lower them to zero?

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

If lowering them are just plain good, period, why not lower them to zero?

At some level (which we haven't reached) revenues go down with a decrease in raxes rather than up. The government does need some revenue to operate.

How does cutting the highest tax rates hurt poor Americans? It helps them by creating jobs so why are the democrats opposed? Is the only reason so they can cry "tax break fro the rich?" Class warfare works becasue the typical low income earner beleives they pay more in taxes than a high income earner. Does the democratic party have an econmic policy other than saying "vote for us, we'll make the man pay"?

RR

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

"Although the dollar is currently at a 9 year low against most currencies this does help exports and at the same time helps to curb imports without adding any pesky tarrifs"

You can spin it to make it sound nice but a weak dollar is a terrible thing over the long term.

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Although the dollar is currently at a 9 year low against most currencies this does help exports and at the same time helps to curb imports without adding any pesky tarrifs"

You can spin it to make it sound nice but a weak dollar is a terrible thing over the long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what is worse for the country over the long term, a trade deficit. Its sort of cyclical, a continual trade deficit will lead the to dollar weakening which will in turn cause the trade deficit to eventually become a surplus since its cheaper for american companies to produce goods now and more expensive for other companies to sell goods here. And the trade surplus will cause the dollar to become strong again.

Now if the weak dollar has other root causes such as the national debt rising causing less faith in the u.s. to pay off that debt eventually, that is a horrible thing since that type of weakening is very hard to reverse.

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

There is no evidence that cutting the highest marginal tax rate creates jobs. In fact, there is evidence that productivity goes down when the highest marginal tax rate goes down. A government has a choice about where and from whom it will collect revenues. A decision to lower the tax rate on X usually means a decision not to lower the tax rate, or to raise the tax rate, on Y. For example, President Bush has said that he would like to see the tax code simplified during his second term and that he would like such simplication to be revenue neutral. Unless everybody ends up paying the exact same amount they would have without simplification, a revenue neutral plan will result in some paying more and some paying less. The argument, no doubt, will be over exactly who pays more and who pays less.

When the impact of all taxes, not just the federal income tax, is taken into account, the middle class pays about the same rate as those above them.

As for the Democaratic Party, my sentiments, as I have indicated here before, is that is it the party of no ideas. As for the charge that the Bush tax breaks were breaks for the rich, Bush's own rhetoric contributed to this. When he says that a waitress making $20,000 a year and a corporate lawyer making $200,000 deserved the same percentage tax cut, he leaves himself open to the charge.

The thing about conservatives . . .
 

is that they're so utterly delusional they can write, for all the world to see, things like this:

[ QUOTE ]
Reagan's tax cuts nearly tripled revenues in the 80's. (The fact that spending increases outstripped the revenue increase is beside the point ..... cutting taxes increased federal revenues). This fact is easily verifiable.

[/ QUOTE ]
One doesn't need to "verify" this because its such obvious nonsense on its face. Under Reagan, real federal revenues increased about 20% (they doubled, but never tripled, nominally during the 1980's). This increase only occurred because Reagan signed tax increase legislation every year from 1982 through 1986, leading to a net increase in the federal tax burden. See Bruce Bartlett on Reagan tax increases.

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

Andy,
I have a feeling you and I aren't THAT far apart on these issues. Thinking baout this stuff reminds me of why I went into microeconomics rather than macro. I did take some macro along the way. I have always gone with the republicans on the single issue of taxes; I beleive the US is overtaxed.

RR

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

I'm not sure what you mean by overtaxed. Apparently, the Bush admnistration is going to spend $500,000,000 more this year than they take in. And the federal debt is now $8,000,000,000,000. So if we're overtaxed we're over-overspending.

The tax system was designed by the rich and powerful for their benefit. So I worry about tax "simplification."

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

Tax cuts alone are not a panacea.

Sound economic policy is first and foremost fiscally responsible.

The problem is not that we have debt, not that we have deficits, not that we have run-away spending, and not that we have high taxes. The problem is that we have all of that together.

A fically responsible plan for the government would look something like:

1) cut discretionary spending to the bone
2) cut taxes across the board by a small, but meaningfull %
3) modify the tax code to further reward savings and investment for average americans
4) revamp non-discretionary programs to lower spending even more
5) use what should be nice revenue increases from 1-4 to pay down debt
6) keep repeating these steps until further tax cuts cause revenues to go down by a greater percentage than you can cut spending.

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

So if we're overtaxed we're over-overspending.

I don't think their is an if on either of those. We are over taxed and the governament spends way too much. When I sya we are taxed too much I belive we are taxed in a range that cutting taxes would promote growth and an increase in tax revenues.

RR

Re: The thing about conservatives . . .
 

I didn't say they tripled but that they nearly tripled. Never the less I still had the wrong impression and I stand corrected (damn its embarassing [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] to have to admit a mistake like this in such a widely viewed forum .... can we just keep it between us?) .... But the essential point concerning tax cuts is still valid wouldn't you agree? [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1443.cfm

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

When I sya we are taxed too much I belive we are taxed in a range that cutting taxes would promote growth and an increase in tax revenues.

When it comes to a range where cutting taxes would result in decreasing revenues, I'm in favor of that too. I think we spend 3 times as much as we should, if not more. I'm totally in favor of cutting taxes beyond the point where it would increase revenue.

Decreasing revenue is a worthy goal in and of itself.

natedogg

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

Isn't a big portion of the government's expenditures taken up by Social Security, defense, and paying interest on the debt? Won't privatizing a portion of Social Security, the continuing war in Iraq and on terror, and the additional $2,000,000,000,000 in debt coming over the next ten years make things worse? Bush has created a new variation on the Democrats' traditional tax-and-spend policies with spend-and-spend. The government has looted the Social Security fund of $1,700,000,000,000 over the past ten years; what will is do with less in the kitty?

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

The cost of social security is going to esculate over the next years whether it is privatized or not. In fact the current and near term future cost will remain unchanged. The issue is whether or not we should install a better system for our future and divert general revenue to make up for the transition. This would largely be done with long term government notes. It seems to me then that the question of social security it two fold #1) Is a system of ownershiip better than a government entitlement and B)Can we take on this additional debt.

Its too bad we have been conditioned to look at budget surpluses and deficits on a year to year basis, instead of ove a whole economic cycle. Its tough to know given recent events if Clinton would have ran a deficit or if reversed Bush a surplus.

Re: The thing about conservatives . . .
 

No I wouldn't agree. You're assuming that all econonmic growth during the 1980's (the direct cause of increased federal revenues) was the result of Reagan's 1981 tax cut. This doesn't make sense, however, because it ignores that (1) Reagan actually increased taxes; (2) states and localities increased taxes; (3) there were a number of factors (like productivity growth) that increased output independently of any tax cut, and that these factors included (4) massive borrowing and spending, at Reagan's behest, by the federal government throughout the 1980's. As your source indicates, "the level of government spending and the type of government spending also influence economic activity." Attributing 1980's revenue increases to the 1981 tax cut therefore doesn't make sense.

My name is Dubya and I\'ll be yer Chef for the next 4 years
 

Jimbo,

The level of taxes is not something written in stone. In general, it is good for business and investment and job-creating endeavours to have lower rather than higher taxes. As a matter of fact, I have been trying for lower taxes, in public life, myself, at appropriate times.

If you look around there is not a single politician who has ever run on a platform of higher taxes!

The question is, (and this is where the political bickering begins!) what is being done with the money collected by the state from taxes. What is the proper allocation among defence (offence, in the case of the US!), education, welfare, etc, and the proper level of funding each one of 'em, if at all. These are political decisions to be sure, but the level of taxes should be the afterthought, not the stepping stone. (E.G. if the country urgently needs WMDs to defend itself, the country's leaders should calculate the cost and then fund the thing, which might also entail higher taxation. A country can never say that it cannot defend itself because that would mean higher taxes. Just an example.)

Without making too much out of it, I believe that this not unlike cooking - where the best chefs in the world and your grandma know precisely the ingredients and the proper mix of 'em. Which changes from menu to menu -- more salt on this dish, less on that, etc.

IMHO, the United States one of the worst possible chefs in the White House right now. Forget that he won resoundingly a second term and how. A man who knows only one recipe in defence (bombinvade, bombinvade, bombinvade, ad nauseum) and economic matters (lesstaxes,lesstaxes,lesstaxes,lesstaxes, ad nauseum) is a lousy strategist and a bad cook.

And a bad poker player : Give me the best player in the world to face if he's gonna adopt one and the same tactic throughout our game.

Take care,

Cyrus

Memo to Jimbo
 

Note the operative phrase in the Heritage Foundation link provided by Abednego : "... "the level of government spending and the type of government spending also influence economic activity."

This is precisely what we were talking about in that thread you started.




Heritage on taxes]

<font color="white">. </font>

Re: My name is Dubya and I\'ll be yer Chef for the next 4 years
 

Hi Cyrus:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Give me the best player in the world to face if he's gonna adopt one and the same tactic throughout our game

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I haven't read most of this thread, but your statement is clearly wrong for most poker games, especially today. That's because typical players are just not aware enough for the best player in the world to change his strategy much against them.

Now let's carry this over to world affairs. Now I'm not an expert here, but the same thing is often the case, especially in warfair.

A very good example was what was known as The Tokyo Express in WWII. This had something to do with the fighting around Guadal Canal and it referred to how the Japanese would try to resupply their troops late at night always at the same time.

Now how true this is in the world right now, I can't say for sure. But I suspect that if GWB (and who knows, he just might be the GWB that posts here) happens to have the right strategy, he won't need to change it much over the next four years.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

Quite the moron.

You are as bad as MMM. You don't know who Keynes was, probably have no idea of classical equilibrium theory, and probably are not even aware that monetarist policy practiced by the Bush administration is based on nothing more than faith (no imperical evidence that it works at all). Your false claims regarding the Reagan administration ignore reality. This is normal for Bush backers.If they lie often enough, they believe it becomes the truth.
You are a basic idiot. None other than US office of budget and management places the deficits square on the rob from the middle give to the rich, bankrupt the country, policies of the current administration.

No educated person should give your dribble the time of day.

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are as bad as MMM....You are a basic idiot

[/ QUOTE ]

Far better to be a basic idiot than the village idiot...eh, jokerswild?

Re: My name is Dubya and I\'ll be yer Chef for the next 4 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now how true this is in the world right now, I can't say for sure. But I suspect that if GWB (and who knows, he just might be the GWB that posts here) happens to have the right strategy, he won't need to change it much over the next four years.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cool, so I can just coast for the next four years and let my bots run things.

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

If lowering them are just plain good, period, why not lower them to zero?

We'll make a libertarian out of you yet. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Mason Malmuth steps into the kitchen
 

Mason, thanks for taking an interest -- and for monitoring my posts so closely!

I stated <font color="blue"> "Give me the best player in the world to face if he's gonna adopt one and the same tactic throughout our game." </font>

Mason, you wrote "[That] statement is clearly wrong for most poker games, especially today. That's because typical players are just not aware enough for the best player in the world to change his strategy much against them."

Thanks for the comment.

I believe your comment is not correct, for the following reason:

I clearly referred to tactics. While, as you know, strategy is the sum of tactics. (It's more than that, actually.) One tactic possibly employed by the BPITW (Best Player In The World) in NL HE would be to go all-in in every hand. This would be a constant tactic alright, "one and the same tactic", as I clearly wrote. The sum of BPITW's tactics (that single tactic, actually) would then constitute his strategy. I submit that such a strategy would be obviously and seriously inferior for the BPITW's expectation -- even when he'd be facing average players. I further submit that the BPITW would fare better if he would adopt a different strategy, one which would entail more than one tactics.

In case you meant tactics instead of strategy, then I would submit that your statement is irrelevant. That's because you talk about the BPITW not changing his tactics much (a statement I happen to agree with) while I'm talking about not changing tactics at all. Which i find to be incorrect, as a strategy. If I, an average poker player, had to face the BPITW, I'd definitely prefer to have him follow a strategy that employed one and the same tactic throughout our game.

I might take this to the Poker Theory forum for further discussion, if you don't mind.

Now, in world affairs, as well as in everyday life, adopting one and the same tactic in response to an outside event, is rarely, if ever, the optimal strategy. (Declaring a specific possible future event X, e.g. a border violation by armed forces of the neighbour, to be a casus beli, and "promising" that X will be always followed by massive nuclear retaliation does NOT contravene the previously-mentioned premise.)

What is missing in the American administration's approach are the nuances and the tactical varieties necessary for a correct strategy against a new, strong, serious and determined opponent, as is muslim terrorism.

To give a historical example of an administration that handled things vastly differently and in a situation that entailed, at the time, a much more imminent and massive danger than muslim terrorism, I would humbly recommend a study of the American administration's workings during the Cuban crisis of 1962-3. A good start would be the published transcripts of the White House meetings and discussions.

What if if George W Bush was in charge of the US presidency in 1962? I submit that we would've had a significantly higher probablitiy of going nuclear.

Take care,

--Cyrus

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
No educated person should give your dribble the time of day.


[/ QUOTE ]

If true then is quite appropriate that you chose to respond. Will the next uneducated person care to respond?

Jimbo

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
The government has looted the Social Security fund of $1,700,000,000,000 over the past ten years; what will is do with less in the kitty?


[/ QUOTE ]

Andy,

You know that no money has been "looted" from the Social Security program, this is forbidden by Federal law. The annual surpluses have been loaned to the government with interest. The only question is, will the governemnt have enough funds to repay the fund beginning in 2037 when it is projected that the fund will then be paying out more than it takes in? One alternative to insure funds are available is to decrease the rate at which different types of debt are repayed by our government. Currently politicians concentrate on reducing the National debt by repaying debt owned to private parties. One soultion is (in 2037) to shift this repayment burden back into the Social Security fund.

As long as the economy continues to grow and prosper and we balance reduced taxes with reduced Federal spending the National Debt will begin to decrease. This is up to Congress which historically has shown poor judgement in fiscal matters.

Jimbo

Re: My name is Dubya and I\'ll be yer Chef for the next 4 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you look around there is not a single politician who has ever run on a platform of higher taxes!


[/ QUOTE ]

Dear Cyrus,

Where have you been the last two years of the Presidential campaign? I understand that you liberal types do not enjoy calling a revocation of a prior tax reduction a tax increase but just because you refuse to acknowledge the facts does not make the facts change. News flash Cyrus; When you want someone to pay more taxes next year on the same amount of earned income than they did the current year that is a tax increase.

[ QUOTE ]
And a bad poker player : Give me the best player in the world to face if he's gonna adopt one and the same tactic throughout our game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that Mason has already shown you the mistake in your above quote but as usual you have disputed his sage analysis in another post full of gobbledygook. You just cannot teach an old Cyrus new tricks!

Jimbo

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

Just a short comment on your classical equilibrium theory statement. This is pretty much supply side economics so if you simoly were bandying about fancy terms you should know that I agree with Say's Law.

Jimbo

Re: My name is Dubya and I\'ll be yer Chef for the next 4 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you look around there is not a single politician who has ever run on a platform of higher taxes!

[/ QUOTE ]

George Washington. I'll let others elaborate.

MM

Re: My name is Dubya and I\'ll be yer Chef for the next 4 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you look around there is not a single politician who has ever run on a platform of higher taxes!

[/ QUOTE ]

George Washington. I'll let others elaborate.

MM

[/ QUOTE ]

and what of Mondale in 1984?

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

I stand by my word "looted." Since 1983, the government has spent almost $5.4 trillion more than it took in. But the debt grew by "only" $3.6 trillion because of excess Social Security taxes. The rise in Social Security taxes has finances income tax cuts.

I hope the president addresses the Social Security tax travesty when he turns to tax simplification. Economists of all stripes ageee that the Social Security tax payed by the employer (which is also 6.2% up to $87,000) is really paid by workers, that it is simply an invisible part of their compensation. Thus a married couple who together earns $87,000 pays $10,788 in Social Security taxes, which is the same amount as a married couple who together earn $1,087,0000 or $100,087,000.

George Washington run a campaign promising higher taxes?!
 

Mason,

Thanks for the pointer. Quite educational.

I truly did not know George Washington had actually promised that, if elected, he'd raise taxes! Not what he did, but what he promised. (I wrote "If you look around there is not a single politician who has ever run on a platform of higher taxes!" Platform indicates promise, not action.)

And I was thinking in terms of rather more ..recent politics but ol' Washington will do. So, I would very much appreciate those "others" that Mason keeps inviting "to elaborate" giving us any citation with such a George Washington tax-raising promise to the voters.

Anyone?

--Cyrus

Re: My name is Dubya and I\'ll be yer Chef for the next 4 years
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll let others elaborate

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to put you down but, this line was kinda funny the first couple of times I saw it. Now it's getting old. Sklansky uses a similar phrase. "Do you see why?". I can see no good reason to make me do needless reasearch when you could just as easily tell me in more clear terms. Is it because you don't want to say why and be wrong? If you do have a good reason for using this phrase please tell me what it is I would like to know.

silly

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

Just a short comment on your classical equilibrium theory statement. This is pretty much supply side economics so if you simoly were bandying about fancy terms you should know that I agree with Say's Law.


Sure, why not, it allows a crackpot theory to have some sort of classical foundation. Let's just ignore the fact that it doesn't, hasn't and will never work in any non striclty barter based economy.

Say's law doesn't apply to any economy with currency because the efficent nature of transactions required for it to apply do not exist.

It would appear that you are an advoacate of lassiez-faire economics. If you are, saying you believe in "say's law" displays either confusion or ignrance on your part. The focus of modern lassiez-faire theoriticians is the focus on freeing markets of barriers to full employment, like minnium wage.

I don't mean to be judgemental, but advocating lassiez-faire economic policy and using say's law as a reason simply makes you appear desperate to have some sort of classical refrence without realizing it doesn't apply and calls your credibility into serious question.

Re: My name is Dubya and I\'ll be yer Chef for the next 4 years
 

Hi Silly:

[ QUOTE ]
Sklansky uses a similar phrase. "Do you see why?".

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because he works for me and is just trying to please the boss.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Mason Malmuth steps into the kitchen
 

"I clearly referred to tactics. While, as you know, strategy is the sum of tactics. (It's more than that, actually.) One tactic possibly employed by the BPITW (Best Player In The World) in NL HE would be to go all-in in every hand. This would be a constant tactic alright, "one and the same tactic", as I clearly wrote. The sum of BPITW's tactics (that single tactic, actually) would then constitute his strategy. I submit that such a strategy would be obviously and seriously inferior for the BPITW's expectation -- even when he'd be facing average players. I further submit that the BPITW would fare better if he would adopt a different strategy, one which would entail more than one tactics."

Fair enough, but now i challenge you to relate this to America and your prior comments about GWB. I think you'll have a hard time proving a case, needing to justify the hyperbole you stated earlier. On the other hand, it is my opinon that the US has many tactics, some of which are correct and strong, and some of which are simply not. This can often add up to total a weak strategy, but i doubt this is what you were refering to.

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

Stop trying to be so pretentious-you can't even spell "empirical"!

Re: An Economics Lesson for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thus a married couple who together earns $87,000 pays $10,788 in Social Security taxes, which is the same amount as a married couple who together earn $1,087,0000 or $100,087,000.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wheras you see this as unfair I see it as quite reasonable. I don't buy the Socialist platform Andy and neither should you. At full retirement age both your hypothetical couples will receive the same social security checks. However the wealthy couple will likely have additional income and be forced to pay more income tax on up to 50% of their social security income. They will get much less net from thier SS income, this should please you.

[ QUOTE ]
I stand by my word "looted." Since 1983, the government has spent almost $5.4 trillion more than it took in. But the debt grew by "only" $3.6 trillion because of excess Social Security taxes. The rise in Social Security taxes has finances income tax cuts.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then you lose credibility by doing so Andy. The debt you (and politicians) are quoting is simply external debt which does not include the debt the government owes to itself. That does not mean the internal debt does not exist since by law it is required to be repaid. Andy please do not stoop to low liberal political trick language in an attempt to scare people into believing something that isn't true.

Jimbo