Uncivil Rights
A BLOG rife with wit, sarcasm, and the endless joy which comes from taunting the socialistic and unpatriotic liberal left. Logical thoughts and musings ONLY need reply...unless you're really, really funny. You have the Uncivil Right to be an IDIOT.
"Give me LIBERTY, or give me DEATH!"
Monday, February 07, 2005
"News Analysis" ANALYSIS
From the New York Times: "Trim Deficit? Only if Bush Uses Magic", By EDMUND L. ANDREWS, Published: February 7, 2005
Please click link for complete article. I have taken excerpts on which to comment.
"On top of that, Mr. Bush's plan to replace part of Social Security with private savings accounts could require additional trillions of dollars in borrowing over the next several decades."
Could require additional trillions? Whether one wants to admit it or not, money must be found somewhere to cover the congressional “IOUs” that have acquired over the years.
"The cornerstone of Mr. Bush's budget strategy is a belief that vigorous economic growth, spurred by supply-side tax cuts that were designed to provide incentives for upper-income Americans to produce more wealth, will generate big jumps in tax revenue that gradually reduce the deficit."
That is correct. As far as I know, no one has EVER received a job from a poor person.
"Through most of the 1990's, government spending grew at a snail's pace. But government spending soared during President Bush's first term and is expected to keep growing rapidly as the nation's baby boomers start to claim old-age benefits."
Gee, a dotcom bubble that BURST and then the country gets attacked by terrorists, not to mention the recession, and a war, but he’s right, it’s all Bush’s fault.
"In the 1990's, the biggest jump in revenues came from high-income taxpayers who made enormous profits in the stock market bubble that ended in 2000. But Mr. Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 reduced rates on the wealthiest taxpayers and cut in half the taxes on dividends and capital gains, making it all but impossible for revenues to rise at a substantially faster pace than economic growth."
As I recall, those that made ENORMOUS profits, also LOST ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY when the bubble BURST. Government revenues = taxes (you’ve got to love the liberal way of thinking.)
"Mr. Bush's own projections leave out the cost of rolling back the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax that is expected to ensnare tens of millions of middle-income households as incomes rise with inflation. Republicans and Democrats both want to prevent such a trap, but a fix would cost roughly $500 billion over the next 10 years."
There is a COST to a tax rollback? It would COST $500 billion? Does he mean the government would COLLECT $500 billion LESS? Again, the fiscal thought process of the left is astounding.
"When Mr. Bush unveils his budget plan on Monday, White House officials hope to focus public attention on his proposals to cut scores of domestic programs: Medicaid, housing programs and Amtrak subsidies, among others. But while many of those cuts would be severe, their impact on the deficit would be small."
At least it’s a start. Every little bit helps. Even a penny profit is still a profit.
"In all, Mr. Bush has vowed to cut or eliminate 150 government programs. But Republican Congressional analysts predicted on Friday that those cuts would be unlikely to save more than $15 billion. And even those savings may not materialize."
I guess if those programs are cut and still make no difference on the budget, then perhaps we should never have had those programs to begin with.
"Last year, Mr. Bush called for cutting or eliminating 65 programs, for a total projected saving of $4.8 billion. But Congress agreed to eliminate only four of those programs, for a savings of less than $200 million. "
Ahhh, so it’s the fault of Congress and not necessarily Bush’s.
"The other side of Mr. Bush's equation - higher tax revenues that result from faster growth - is unlikely to fill the gap. Despite strong economic growth and soaring corporate profits last year, federal tax revenues amounted to only 16.3 percent of the total economy, comparable with levels in the 1950's and far below the level of 21 percent reached during the stock market bubble in 2000."
Yes, we were overtaxed in the 1990’s. Wasn’t Clinton president then?
"What's unrealistic is that they are trying to fund a government with today's demands on a 1950's stream of revenue," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a research group that advocates fiscal discipline by the government."
No, we’re trying to fund a government that should have fewer demands on it, fewer entitlements.
"Tax revenues soared far beyond expectations during the economic boom and stock market bubble of the late 1990's, but budget analysts say there is little likelihood of repeating that feat in this decade."
Why isn’t he mentioning the BURST of that bubble and its effects on the economy? Oh, that’s right, it’s the New York Times.
"One reason is that Mr. Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 went largely to the nation's wealthiest taxpayers, the same people who accounted for the unexpected flood of tax revenue last time around. White House officials are already counting on tax revenues to surge by at least $200 billion this year, an increase of about 10 percent, and to climb more gradually after that."
Why do tax cuts always seem to go to the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers? Is it because THEY PAY MOST OF THE TAXES?!!!
"But even Mr. Bush's conservative allies have warned that those inflows will not be enough to cover the continued growth in overall government spending. Brian Riedl, budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group here, estimated that deficits would remain around $400 billion through 2009 if current spending trends on Iraq and major benefit programs continued."
Perhaps then, we should eliminate major benefit programs.
"For Mr. Bush to fulfill his promise of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, Mr. Riedl said, the president would have to cut $200 billion from domestic programs that now cost less than $500 billion a year."
And?
"There is no way you can reach that goal by cutting only discretionary spending," Mr. Riedl said. "You have to go after entitlements as well."
NOW THERE’S AN IDEA! WOOHOO! SOMEONE GETS IT! CUT THE DAMN ENTITLEMENTS!!!
"About two-thirds of the $2.3 trillion federal budget now goes to entitlement programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that costs for Medicare will rise $55 billion in 2005, to $380 billion. Social Security outlays are expected to rise to $540 billion, from $517 billion."
Two-thirds of $2.3 trillion goes to entitlements?! That’s roughly $1.5 trillion to entitlements! Democrats spend 40 years as the majority in Congress, and this is the result.
"You can't get there from here unless you look at entitlements," Mr. Gregg said last Thursday. "It's for the same reason that Willy Sutton said he robbed banks: Because that's where the money is."
AHHH, SOMEONE SAID IT AGAIN! ENTITLEMENTS ARE WHERE OUR MONEY IS GOING!
"For starters, Mr. Bush wants to permanently extend his tax cuts rather than allow them to expire by 2011. That would cost about $1.8 trillion over the next decade, and most of the cost would occur after 2009."
Oh boy, here we go again. Permanent tax cuts would COST $1.8 trillion over the next decade? COST? I believe a tax CUT doesn’t COST a dime! Can someone get these liberals a dictionary and a book on economics?
"If Congress prevents an expansion of the alternative minimum tax, which Mr. Bush has said he wants, the cost would be $500 billion over the next decade and well over half of those costs would in the second five years."
COST of tax cuts would be $500 billion? COST?
"Those blows would be hitting the budget at the same time that the costs of the new Medicare prescription drug programs approach $100 billion a year and as the flood of baby boomers start to claim Social Security and Medicare entitlements."
It doesn’t get clearer than this: “…start to claim Social Security and Medicare
entitlements.”
It is always amusing (and sad) to see how liberals view government, taxes, and the populace. It's always the "government's money", not the taxpayer's money. Big government is revered while the individual and their rights are viewed with disgust. It is the individual and their control and power over their own choices and future that is the biggest threat to liberals tand THEIR government.
Please click link for complete article. I have taken excerpts on which to comment.
"On top of that, Mr. Bush's plan to replace part of Social Security with private savings accounts could require additional trillions of dollars in borrowing over the next several decades."
Could require additional trillions? Whether one wants to admit it or not, money must be found somewhere to cover the congressional “IOUs” that have acquired over the years.
"The cornerstone of Mr. Bush's budget strategy is a belief that vigorous economic growth, spurred by supply-side tax cuts that were designed to provide incentives for upper-income Americans to produce more wealth, will generate big jumps in tax revenue that gradually reduce the deficit."
That is correct. As far as I know, no one has EVER received a job from a poor person.
"Through most of the 1990's, government spending grew at a snail's pace. But government spending soared during President Bush's first term and is expected to keep growing rapidly as the nation's baby boomers start to claim old-age benefits."
Gee, a dotcom bubble that BURST and then the country gets attacked by terrorists, not to mention the recession, and a war, but he’s right, it’s all Bush’s fault.
"In the 1990's, the biggest jump in revenues came from high-income taxpayers who made enormous profits in the stock market bubble that ended in 2000. But Mr. Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 reduced rates on the wealthiest taxpayers and cut in half the taxes on dividends and capital gains, making it all but impossible for revenues to rise at a substantially faster pace than economic growth."
As I recall, those that made ENORMOUS profits, also LOST ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY when the bubble BURST. Government revenues = taxes (you’ve got to love the liberal way of thinking.)
"Mr. Bush's own projections leave out the cost of rolling back the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax that is expected to ensnare tens of millions of middle-income households as incomes rise with inflation. Republicans and Democrats both want to prevent such a trap, but a fix would cost roughly $500 billion over the next 10 years."
There is a COST to a tax rollback? It would COST $500 billion? Does he mean the government would COLLECT $500 billion LESS? Again, the fiscal thought process of the left is astounding.
"When Mr. Bush unveils his budget plan on Monday, White House officials hope to focus public attention on his proposals to cut scores of domestic programs: Medicaid, housing programs and Amtrak subsidies, among others. But while many of those cuts would be severe, their impact on the deficit would be small."
At least it’s a start. Every little bit helps. Even a penny profit is still a profit.
"In all, Mr. Bush has vowed to cut or eliminate 150 government programs. But Republican Congressional analysts predicted on Friday that those cuts would be unlikely to save more than $15 billion. And even those savings may not materialize."
I guess if those programs are cut and still make no difference on the budget, then perhaps we should never have had those programs to begin with.
"Last year, Mr. Bush called for cutting or eliminating 65 programs, for a total projected saving of $4.8 billion. But Congress agreed to eliminate only four of those programs, for a savings of less than $200 million. "
Ahhh, so it’s the fault of Congress and not necessarily Bush’s.
"The other side of Mr. Bush's equation - higher tax revenues that result from faster growth - is unlikely to fill the gap. Despite strong economic growth and soaring corporate profits last year, federal tax revenues amounted to only 16.3 percent of the total economy, comparable with levels in the 1950's and far below the level of 21 percent reached during the stock market bubble in 2000."
Yes, we were overtaxed in the 1990’s. Wasn’t Clinton president then?
"What's unrealistic is that they are trying to fund a government with today's demands on a 1950's stream of revenue," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a research group that advocates fiscal discipline by the government."
No, we’re trying to fund a government that should have fewer demands on it, fewer entitlements.
"Tax revenues soared far beyond expectations during the economic boom and stock market bubble of the late 1990's, but budget analysts say there is little likelihood of repeating that feat in this decade."
Why isn’t he mentioning the BURST of that bubble and its effects on the economy? Oh, that’s right, it’s the New York Times.
"One reason is that Mr. Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 went largely to the nation's wealthiest taxpayers, the same people who accounted for the unexpected flood of tax revenue last time around. White House officials are already counting on tax revenues to surge by at least $200 billion this year, an increase of about 10 percent, and to climb more gradually after that."
Why do tax cuts always seem to go to the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers? Is it because THEY PAY MOST OF THE TAXES?!!!
"But even Mr. Bush's conservative allies have warned that those inflows will not be enough to cover the continued growth in overall government spending. Brian Riedl, budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group here, estimated that deficits would remain around $400 billion through 2009 if current spending trends on Iraq and major benefit programs continued."
Perhaps then, we should eliminate major benefit programs.
"For Mr. Bush to fulfill his promise of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, Mr. Riedl said, the president would have to cut $200 billion from domestic programs that now cost less than $500 billion a year."
And?
"There is no way you can reach that goal by cutting only discretionary spending," Mr. Riedl said. "You have to go after entitlements as well."
NOW THERE’S AN IDEA! WOOHOO! SOMEONE GETS IT! CUT THE DAMN ENTITLEMENTS!!!
"About two-thirds of the $2.3 trillion federal budget now goes to entitlement programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that costs for Medicare will rise $55 billion in 2005, to $380 billion. Social Security outlays are expected to rise to $540 billion, from $517 billion."
Two-thirds of $2.3 trillion goes to entitlements?! That’s roughly $1.5 trillion to entitlements! Democrats spend 40 years as the majority in Congress, and this is the result.
"You can't get there from here unless you look at entitlements," Mr. Gregg said last Thursday. "It's for the same reason that Willy Sutton said he robbed banks: Because that's where the money is."
AHHH, SOMEONE SAID IT AGAIN! ENTITLEMENTS ARE WHERE OUR MONEY IS GOING!
"For starters, Mr. Bush wants to permanently extend his tax cuts rather than allow them to expire by 2011. That would cost about $1.8 trillion over the next decade, and most of the cost would occur after 2009."
Oh boy, here we go again. Permanent tax cuts would COST $1.8 trillion over the next decade? COST? I believe a tax CUT doesn’t COST a dime! Can someone get these liberals a dictionary and a book on economics?
"If Congress prevents an expansion of the alternative minimum tax, which Mr. Bush has said he wants, the cost would be $500 billion over the next decade and well over half of those costs would in the second five years."
COST of tax cuts would be $500 billion? COST?
"Those blows would be hitting the budget at the same time that the costs of the new Medicare prescription drug programs approach $100 billion a year and as the flood of baby boomers start to claim Social Security and Medicare entitlements."
It doesn’t get clearer than this: “…start to claim Social Security and Medicare
entitlements.”
It is always amusing (and sad) to see how liberals view government, taxes, and the populace. It's always the "government's money", not the taxpayer's money. Big government is revered while the individual and their rights are viewed with disgust. It is the individual and their control and power over their own choices and future that is the biggest threat to liberals tand THEIR government.
totalkaosdave, 8:13 PM
|
