Post by NoEdLet me help you here.
Thanks for responding. I'm going to criticize
some of your answers, but I appreciate the effort.
Post by NoEd7) Does Kerry plan to raise taxes for people earning
Post by Last2Knowless than 200,000 per year?
In a typical class warfare move he states he will raise taxes on those
making more than $200,000. And if there is additional money extorted, he
will use the money to pay for increased healthcare spending.
I don't see this description of a policy as class warfare.
The Bush admin and Republican Congress introduced a number
of tax cuts over the last four years that had concentrated
benefits for high income and wealthy people. These included
changes to the tax rates, lowering of taxes on dividends,
and eliminating taxes on inheritances over $1,000,000
(the amount under that was previously scheduled to be
tax free during the time period affected by the legislative
change). At the same time, we went from a budget surplus
to a severe budget deficit that will get worse in the
future as a greater proportion of the workforce hits
retirement age. Bush and the Repub Congress reduced
revenues and increased spending on both Defense and Domestic
programs resulting in a lot of budget strain. This is a repeat
of what last happened under Regan and the Dem Congress of the 1980s.
It should be clear to both responsible Dems and Repubs that we
need to either increase revenues or reduce spending. Kerry is
at least saying how he will increase revenues and I support
your implied criticism that he is not specific enough.
Bush has not communicated to the voters what he
will do to either reduce spending or increase revenue
(if it is buried in fine print on his website somewhere
basically none of the voters or the media have picked
up on it). Don't you think that voters have a right
to understand what policies they are voting for with
these candidate? Isn't it wrong for them to believe
that he will not increase taxes and also not touch
any spending programs that they care about? In this
sense, Bush is running on a bigger fiction than Kerry.
Post by NoEdBoth of these are a disaster. Taxes are already too high and it is
immoral to have somebody else pay for another's healthcare.
Why is it immoral and how does it differ from what we
already have? We have Medicare and Medicaid. When
you work for a company and you are single then you
pay for the healthcare of people with families.
How do you expect people with a lot of healthcare
issues that limit their productivity to always
pay for their own healthcare? Do you think
any sort of societal safety net is immoral and
it should always be every person for themselves?
Post by NoEdWe need
LESS spending by government on healthcare and a bigger portion of the
healthcare pie being taken over by private sector, esp. less direct
spending like Medicare and Medicaid programs. Healthcare is not a
right, i.e. no one owes me healthcare.
Do they "owe" you policing? Why aren't you required
to pay for your own private security force? How
about defense? Why am I required to pay taxes to
support sending cruise missles hither and thither and
having my neighbors get blown up by suicide bombers
in Iraq?
Post by NoEd1) Does the level of U.S. National Debt matter?
Post by Last2KnowAre there any consequences to making the debt too large? What are
those consequences?
Of course it matters, but its current size is not a problem.
The current size is growing every year and projected to
grow faster in the future. You didn't answer my question
about what the consequences are. Without analyzing that
we can't really know that even the current size isn't
a problem. Just because things haven't collapsed yet
doesn't mean we haven't set processes in motion that
will have bad consequences. Why exactly do you think
we can count on Far East banks wanting to hold more and
more U.S. govt. bonds in the future? Surely the
attractiveness of those bonds depends on interest rates
in other countries, that our govt. has no control
over. What do you think will happen to our ability
to continue borrowing when Japan and/or China decide
that fighting inflation instead of pumping growth is
their current fiscal priority?
Post by NoEdInterest
rates were at record lows not to long ago. The solution is to freeze
social and pork barrel spending and grow out of the debt.
I bet just about everybody, no matter what their political
leanings, would profess themselves to be against "pork
barrel spending". The Bush administration has shown
itself to have absolutely no inclination to fight spending
of any type, and it sounds like his platform for the
next four years offers lots of new spending proposals.
Post by NoEdPost by Last2Know2) Are there any expenditures in the Federal budget that help people
other than beneficiaries of social security, medicare, and social
programs for the poor?
If there is, they need to be eliminated.
So you want to eliminate defense spending, spending for
highway maintenance, spending on scientific research, etc?
Post by NoEd3) Has the U.S. govt. successfully collected enough
Post by Last2Knowrevenue to pay for its past expenditures?
I guess the question is can the total national debt be paid off now. The
answer is no.
Right.
Post by NoEd4) Does the U.S. govt. plan to collect enough money
Post by Last2Knowfor its future expenditures?
It depends if spending is cut.
I haven't seen any serious plan from either party to
prevent the debt from continuing to grow.
Post by NoEd5) Does the govt. have plans to collect enough money
Post by Last2Knowto pay out the future expeditures it has already promised while
maintaining levels of expenditure for things like defense, roads,
scientific research, etc. at a level that keeps pace with inflation?
Give me some examples of promised spending that can't be changed?
I didn't say "can't be changed". I said "already promised".
Social security payments that keep pace with inflation is
an example of a big part of the Federal budget that has
been promised. You know that we have a graduated income
tax rate, but we have a non-graduated payroll tax rate that
kicks in for all salaried people before income/withholding
tax even applies. We take the same 7.6% from each person
and also from their employer no matter what their income
or means and we tell them that this is mostly for their future
social security payments. The govt. could cancel those
future payments, but then it would have lied to all those
people and taken money from them by force on false pretenses.
Post by NoEd6) Does the current financial balance of the U.S. govt.
Post by Last2Knowdepend in any important way on the willingness of foreign creditors to
lend the govt. money? If so, what is the relationship of this
willingness to the levels of govt. debt and spending?
They are willing because the US debt is risk free. They are only
willing because it is to their advantage.
But the U.S. debt isn't really risk free, even if we
assume the govt. will pay the promised amount, because
the value of the U.S. currency can decline dramatically
against other currencies. When the govt., in effect,
prints more money by putting dollars into circulation
(while at the same time there is a large and growing
U.S. current accounts deficit with our trading partners)
we devalue the fundamentals of the currency. Why would
I want to buy a 30 year U.S. Treasury note when I
think I will get paid back in less valuable currency
in the future? If I'm a foreign lender, that is a
very serious question. So the rate at which the govt.
can borrow is very influenced by the future perception
of inflation relative to the currency and that depends
in part on how much we need to borrow in the future.
Post by NoEdWhat must be done is that social and pork barrel spending needs to be
mostly eliminated. The government has taken on roles it was never
intended to take.
One place where we differ is that it is obvious to
me that a second Bush administration with a Republican
Congress is going to lead to more and worse spending
by the govt. They spend in all sorts of indirect
ways as well. For example by allowing corporations
to pollute more and by selling them public resources
at below market cost. They also work hard to make
the bureaucracy less efficient by basically firing
every whistle blower who goes public with a story
about violations of the public trust in their dept.
To me, the Bush administration has established
a clear pattern of always placing short term
political interests ahead of the broader public
good.
Post by NoEdFinally, you cannot have wealth without rich people.
This is one of those dirty little secrets the left doesn't want to
acknowledge.
This is silly hyperbole. Nobody I know is working
to eliminate wealth or rich people. Also, being
wealthy is less desirable if their is more crime
and vagrancy, roads are falling apart, the environment
is polluted, etc.