Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Regardless of your philosophy on taxation and spending, you all must agree that spending and revenues must be balanced. I'm in favor of lower taxes and smaller government, but the fact is that Bush has thrown the system off balance by lowering taxes and raising spending. The only way to restore balance is to increase taxes or lower spending. Because we are fighting two wars, and cracking down on terrorism, spending will not lower anytime soon. We need to raise taxes.

Damn right Jlop. Whether we're taxing the rich, the poor, or the middle class the fact is taxes need to be raised to get rid of this deficit. And don't think our National Debt is just a bunch of money owed to businesses within the US, it's to foreign investors too. The Saudi Government alone has something like $800 BILLION invested in the United States, if they decide to call in their debt one day it will reak havoc with our economy.

The simple fact is that while Bush is preaching an increase in national security he's actually making us less secure because of the all the debt we owe to foreign investors. Since our military is currently eating a lot of money, the only solution is raising taxes,

At 7/1/04 09:51 PM, BUCK_Jefe wrote: Damn right Jlop. Whether we're taxing the rich, the poor, or the middle class the fact is taxes need to be raised to get rid of this deficit.

Why not cut government spending instead?

And don't think our National Debt is just a bunch of money owed to businesses within the US, it's to foreign investors too. The Saudi Government alone has something like $800 BILLION invested in the United States, if they decide to call in their debt one day it will reak havoc with our economy.

Raising taxes on Americans will not pay off the debts owed to the Saudi's, and you know it. It will be spent on un-maintainable votebuying like the prescription drug benefit and increased Medicare benefits.

The simple fact is that while Bush is preaching an increase in national security he's actually making us less secure because of the all the debt we owe to foreign investors. Since our military is currently eating a lot of money, the only solution is raising taxes.

Raising taxes is not the only solution. Spending cuts are a very viable solution. We don't need an Iowa Rainforest or federal potato storage.

At 7/1/04 10:35 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 7/1/04 09:51 PM, BUCK_Jefe wrote: Damn right Jlop. Whether we're taxing the rich, the poor, or the middle class the fact is taxes need to be raised to get rid of this deficit.

Why not cut government spending instead?

We need to do both to effectively and quicky reduce our deficit. And with Iraq and Afganistan its hard to cut government spending because of the costs of the wars. You can cut government programs some to help a little, but as soon as the wars are over with we need to recoupe cutting spending and having a little more taxes incomming so that we dont have to worry about our deficit. This was not the time to be cutting taxes.

At 7/1/04 10:35 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

Why not cut government spending instead?

even if bush cuts spending, he still will have a massive deficit to get rid of. the only way to get that back again is to raise taxes.

At 7/1/04 10:38 PM, ReiperX wrote:

At 7/1/04 10:35 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 7/1/04 09:51 PM, BUCK_Jefe wrote: Damn right Jlop. Whether we're taxing the rich, the poor, or the middle class the fact is taxes need to be raised to get rid of this deficit.

Why not cut government spending instead?

We need to do both to effectively and quicky reduce our deficit. And with Iraq and Afganistan its hard to cut government spending because of the costs of the wars. You can cut government programs some to help a little, but as soon as the wars are over with we need to recoupe cutting spending and having a little more taxes incomming so that we dont have to worry about our deficit. This was not the time to be cutting taxes.

However, it is the spending hikes, not the tax cuts, that are fueling this budget. According to the Tax Foundation, government revenue fell 9.7% from FY01 to FY04. However, spending increased by 24.4% over the same period.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/FY2005perspective.html

If Bush had raised taxes, rather than lowering them, and we gained 9.7% more revenue over the period, we would still have a deficit for FY04 of around 134 billion dollars.

If however, Bush still lowered taxes like he did, but spending remained the same over the period, the deficit would have only been 65 billion. It is the spending hikes, not the drop in revenue, that is causing the lion's share of the deficit.

Even if we reversed the tax cuts, and then on top of that increased taxes by the amount they were originally cut, we would not only still have a deficit, but we would also recede back into the depths of the recession.

At 7/1/04 10:35 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

Why not cut government spending instead?

Republicans had 2 years with all branches of government under their control, yet all they cut is education, state grants, and child welfare. They still won't balance. Why? Because "smaller government" is a big lie.

At 7/1/04 10:35 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Why not cut government spending instead?

We are spending a lot on the military but we would have even without the war. Clinton cut the military spending to the point many in the military were unsure we could defend ourselfs. We needed to build back what was cut back even without the war.

At 7/1/04 11:03 PM, zachomis wrote:

At 7/1/04 10:35 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

Why not cut government spending instead?

Republicans had 2 years with all branches of government under their control, yet all they cut is education, state grants, and child welfare. They still won't balance. Why? Because "smaller government" is a big lie.

Smaller government is achievable, but not when you have both sides of the aisles using taxpayer money to buy votes through new programs. While there are a few suscribers to fiscal conservatism left in the Republican party, they have been eclipsed by the mass influx of neocons.

At 7/1/04 11:15 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:
Smaller government is achievable, but not when you have both sides of the aisles using taxpayer money to buy votes through new programs. While there are a few suscribers to fiscal conservatism left in the Republican party, they have been eclipsed by the mass influx of neocons.

I think I know what your saying, can you elaborate.

At 7/1/04 11:15 PM, gem1 wrote:

At 7/1/04 10:35 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Why not cut government spending instead?

We are spending a lot on the military but we would have even without the war. Clinton cut the military spending to the point many in the military were unsure we could defend ourselfs. We needed to build back what was cut back even without the war.

I think it was Red that posted a source on this a few months back, but the military wasn't cut all that bad. We still had the manpower to defend outselves, probally on both fronts if Mexico and Canada decided to both invade us jointly. I'm all for having a large powerful military, but the cuts weren't severe, and without the cold war no need for some it the excessive military power. Just trying to figure out who those people were worried about defending ourselves from.

At 7/1/04 11:16 PM, gem1 wrote:

I think I know what your saying, can you elaborate.

Well, it seems that, from the Reagan era forward, both parties, but particularly conservatives, have strayed from their core beliefs. They no longer are in it to advance their agenda and ideology, but they are in it for the power. Both Democrats and Republicans over the past few years seemed to have used the promise of doing more for each person than the other party to lure votes, and thus, power, be it more military spending or more homeland security spending or more social security spending or drug benefits or what have you.

In short, people are wanting more and more from their government, the parties are giving the people more and more, all while driving the nation into a fiscal ravine.

Clinton's 'cuts' to the military only leveled off spending over the course of his administration. Which was perfectly understandable, since we don't need to be inflating our military every year, since the cold war is over.

Cool, so I wasn't just imagining things.

BTW glad you went back to simply red_skunk.

What if all the UBER rich just pitched in a bit to neighborhood renovation or the military? Why are the richest bastards such fuckin selfish fuckin greedy shits? Isn't 3 yeah 3 huge yahcts a bit much for paul allen? (M$ number2) -Google -yacht Octopus- It's just not quite right folks!

At 7/2/04 12:30 AM, ReiperX wrote: BTW glad you went back to simply red_skunk.

Whenever I take 'forced vacations' from here, I think I'll change it.

At 7/2/04 12:34 AM, witeshark wrote: What if all the UBER rich just pitched in a bit to neighborhood renovation or the military? Why are the richest bastards such fuckin selfish fuckin greedy shits?

They do pitch in for neighborhood renovation. Have you ever seen where they live? Or their school systems? Or the condition of their roads?

At 7/1/04 11:15 PM, gem1 wrote:

We are spending a lot on the military but we would have even without the war. Clinton cut the military spending to the point many in the military were unsure we could defend ourselfs. We needed to build back what was cut back even without the war.

So you're that the people in the US military are dumb? Dumb enough to believe that the MOAB is a defensive weapon? That the B-2 is a defensive weapon? Trust me, the most expensive of our military is not used for defense. Our country could defend itself on 300 dollars for a nice rifle and lots of ammo.

But in reality, the defense budget is acctually not as big a piece of the pie as everyone thinks. Social security is (well at least it was before Bush put his greedy hands into it.)

At 7/2/04 12:57 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

But in reality, the defense budget is acctually not as big a piece of the pie as everyone thinks.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. It's 17% of the FY2004 budget.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/tables.html

Social security is (well at least it was before Bush put his greedy hands into it.)

Social programs like SSA and Medicaid/care are on the verge of insolvency because of the mass retirement of baby boomers, and increases of services provided (i.e. prescription drug benefits, etc.)

If you surveyed most Americans they would say that defense takes the biggest cut of the American Federal budget, that which it does not. It is about 4th or 5th on the list, under such programs as Medicare and Social Security.

At 7/2/04 01:12 AM, Camarohusky wrote: If you surveyed most Americans they would say that defense takes the biggest cut of the American Federal budget

I don't think anyone would say that.

At 7/2/04 01:27 AM, red_skunk wrote:

At 7/2/04 01:12 AM, Camarohusky wrote: If you surveyed most Americans they would say that defense takes the biggest cut of the American Federal budget

I don't think anyone would say that.

Tell that to 350 college level Political Science students, people who should know more about the government than the average person. In my Political Science class it was overwhelmingly voted that people though the defense was the biggest part of the US budget.

At 7/2/04 01:41 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/2/04 01:27 AM, red_skunk wrote:

At 7/2/04 01:12 AM, Camarohusky wrote: If you surveyed most Americans they would say that defense takes the biggest cut of the American Federal budget

I don't think anyone would say that.

Tell that to 350 college level Political Science students, people who should know more about the government than the average person. In my Political Science class it was overwhelmingly voted that people though the defense was the biggest part of the US budget.

Your political science class is not representative of the average population. And just because they "should" know more about the government than others doesn't mean they do. For example, your classmates could just be ignorant fools who signed up for the class because all the other cool classes were already filled.

Until you actually cite a scientific poll that is representative of the general population of the United States, you really have no reason to keep insisting as such.

OK, that's fair enough. Let's just say that I personally believe that the average person thinks that, from what I have seen and heard. Though that in no way makes it proof at all.

Sorry, but I just have to - pretty pathetic poli-sci class.

At 7/2/04 01:56 AM, red_skunk wrote: Sorry, but I just have to - pretty pathetic poli-sci class.

Having done half ass work and getting an A in the class, while most of the class struggled to get by, I would have to agree with you...

At 7/2/04 12:28 AM, SCHMEGULTON_MACGEE wrote: Clinton's 'cuts' to the military only leveled off spending over the course of his administration. Which was perfectly understandable, since we don't need to be inflating our military every year, since the cold war is over.

Actually, the millitary was somewhat depleated after the first Iraqi war. Clinton did not stray too much from the economics that were going on in the Bush andministration. In reality everything cycles and he should have. He should have been building our military back up. Instead he was still blowing up a lot of very expensive missles at targets most felt were useless. The Kuwait and Iraq military spending for 1996 was over 1/2 billion with no end or solution in sight. Clinton did not replace those missles and by the end of his term we were simply down to our last dozen of several types of missles.

"4) A one-third decline in the military budget in the post-Cold War era. Defense spending now constitutes a smaller share of the federal budget than at any time in American history. Defense cutbacks of roughly $100 billion since 1989 have helped camouflage the large nondefense spending increases in the 1990s."
http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-13-96.html

The first Bush and Clinton were both to blame for the increased in spending at home. I say that but I also believe it was largely out of their hands. You have to take each topic one at a time and it is not necesarily their fault. The laws for healthcare alone have gotten so much more complicated and the system is so much more complicated. How much of this is the presidents fault? An overhaul of the system, perhaps the accounting and paper work system as well as the laws are due and this is only one issue. Is that the presidents fault? Congresses fault?

At 7/2/04 09:49 AM, gem1 wrote:

:: Actually, the millitary was somewhat depleated after the first Iraqi war. Clinton did not stray too much from the economics that were going on in the Bush andministration. In reality everything cycles and he should have. He should have been building our military back up. Instead he was still blowing up a lot of very expensive missles at targets most felt were useless. The Kuwait and Iraq military spending for 1996 was over 1/2 billion with no end or solution in sight. Clinton did not replace those missles and by the end of his term we were simply down to our last dozen of several types of missles.

I would like to see some sources on the running low on spefic types of missles and would actually like to know what missles they are. I'll look the stuff up on Fed Log to check a few facts on them after I got the names.

At 7/2/04 11:39 AM, ReiperX wrote: I'll look the stuff up on Fed Log to check a few facts on them after I got the names.

Does this help, let me know what you find:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/10/223653.shtml

At 7/2/04 11:45 AM, gem1 wrote:

At 7/2/04 11:39 AM, ReiperX wrote: I'll look the stuff up on Fed Log to check a few facts on them after I got the names.

Does this help, let me know what you find:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/10/223653.shtml

Didn't see anything about us getting critically short on certain types of missles. He did cut the Patriot Missle program on upgrades, but there is no evidence to support that testing it would have prevented the allied aircraft shot down. I would more than likely put that on human error for targeting and firing the Patriot Missile at what they thought was an incomming missile.

Cutting back a missle defense plan was a way to save some money since well, the threat of a nuclear attack was reduced post cold war.

I didn't agree with the funding cut on the F-22 Raptor when it happened, but the F-22 also had some bad tests in those years as well <will find the video footage if I can find it again>. As for the Comanche our current administration scrapped that program unfortunately which basically waisted the billions of dollars that was spent on it. I believe the Longbow was up and running when President Clinton left office. The Osprey has all but been scrapped as well due to it being very unsafe and I think 3 or 4 crashes wihle testing costing quite a few lives. We got one of the radios one of the operators had on their back when it crashed into my shop, wasn't a pretty sight.

Not to even mention the entire web site seemed to be slightly biased.

At 7/2/04 11:58 AM, ReiperX wrote:

Not to even mention the entire web site seemed to be slightly biased.

Yes i t was biased, I'll try to find some other sources. I am about to run out of time right now though.