Comments on America becoming Argentina?

Go to The Government We Deserve! - Add a comment - Go to America becoming Argentina?

You confirm my diagnosis.

What you call a "hefty" tax cut is a delusion. You confirm that you have received a total of $900 in tax cuts from Bushboy's farce while millionaires have received well over $100,000 in tax cuts over the same period.

Aside from the fact that the rich didn't need the tax cuts where do you suppose all those trillions of dollars are coming from to provide this largesse? We ran about a $400 billion deficit last year and will exceed $500 billion this year. Do you think there might be a connection? There is no free lunch and there are no "free tax cuts."

You will be paying for those cuts in dozens of ways, with higher interest on the national debt (which is rising faster than ever), with a lower valued dollar (which has lost 20% of it's value versus the euro), with higher state taxes and fees to make up for their own problems which the Federal government can't help with because they are so deep in debt themselves and in higher interest costs on everything you buy in the future.

And please spare me the drivel that both parties are equally to blame. It simply isn't true. The Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated a fiscal irresponsibility that has caused our national debt to mushroom from $1 trillion (when Reagan took office) to nearly $7 trillion today. Clinton was the only president to not only balance the budget but produce surpluses. The Republicans haven't balanced a budget in the last 34 years of their administrations.

And don't get me started on this phony war in Iraq against "terrorism" while Osama plots and plans in Pakistan.

posted by spyinthesky on January 7, 2004 at 6:09 AM | link to this | reply

But, Spy....

I did get a hefty tax cut. I got $600 back in the first round (2002), and $300 in the second round (2003). I only paid $3500 in taxes last year, so the $300 works out to about 10% back. I paid about the same for my '01 taxes, so the $600 I got back in 2002 represents almost 20% return. Some high-income friends of mine ($300K/year combined incomes) paid about 10 times as much tax as I did (sure, they get shelters, but they still have to pay something), and they got back about $25,000. Couldn't tell you what Gates paid, but I'd be willing to bet that his $90K return was ten percent or less of what he paid. I got "chump change" back because I didn't pay much in taxes. They got "big bucks" back because they paid more in taxes (even after taking all their shelters) than I earned last year. I mean, really, if you only paid $5000 in taxes, you can't get a rebate of $20K. As much as we all wish the math worked that way.

As for your assertion that Republicans are irresponsible with tax money, I can only say that I think both sides are equally nuts in their spending. Dems spend money that isn't there on social programs and entitlements; Reps spend money that isn't there on defense. I want both side to stop it.

posted by editormum on January 6, 2004 at 2:34 PM | link to this | reply

Wrong on all counts.

Editorom: I don't know what kind of "hefty" tax cuts you got from Bushboy but it couldn't have been more than $300 and when you compare that to the $90,000 in tax cuts each millionaire received, I'd say you got chump change while the rich got paid-off big time.

The problem with the deficits and with the national debt began with Reagan back in 1981 when he cut the marginal tax rate for the rich from 70% to 28% and then went on a spending spree for weapons that proved often useless. Clinton actually brought some control and fiscal sanity back to the US government by raising the taxes on the rich to the 39% level and cutting costs of senseless weapons and unnecessary government spending.

The fact is that Bushboy has promulgated over $3 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade including the elimination of estate taxes, dividend taxes and capital gains taxes. If you don't get a big source of your income from those areas, you will be shouldering more than your share of the burden. In addition, the INTEREST on the national debt is growing with the size of the debt (naturally) and may soon surpass the costliest item in the federal budget (Defense @ $400 billion). Think about how many schools, roads, bridges and electrical grids can be upgraded or built with that kind of money.

The problem for our fiscal decline has been primarily the Republican irresponsibility and their flagrent use of tax cuts (for the rich primarily) and overspending (primarily on Defense). The facts are irrefutable, believe what you will.

posted by spyinthesky on January 6, 2004 at 9:03 AM | link to this | reply

You know, you made some good points about what's wrong...

But I don't think you can lay the blame squarely on Bush, as you seem to be trying to do. First off, the tax cuts he has imposed are not limited to the rich. I got a hefty tax break, and I make only $33K a year. My ex got a hefty break, too, and he makes only $25K a year. Neither of us is rich. I posted in Oddments about this a while back.

You are right that we need to balance our budget and service our debt responsibly. However, the "national debt explosion" was not ignited by Bush and his cronies; it  began long before that. Before Clinton, before Bush 1, before Reagan, even. Things have been getting worse in recent years, it's true. But the worsening situation is hardly Bush's fault.

As you said, "We continue to send money to China and other trading partners ..... We 'outsource' good American jobs to India, China and other countries...."  That's exactly the problem. But the reason that it's cheaper to outsource to overseas concerns is traceable right back to recent domestic policy decisions, many of them made during the Clinton years. The labyrinth of regulations for running a business---any business---in America these days is causing tremendous overhead costs that simply do not exist in other countries. 

And then there is the problem of entitlement programs. We refuse to cut back when the budget tightens. And we keep adding new entitlements. If there is no money in the budget, there should be no money spent. But we won't do that. And so entitlements and runaway spending continue. 

And now, as this has gotten so very long, I am going to refer you to my Oddments blog, where I will continue these thoughts further.

posted by editormum on January 6, 2004 at 8:16 AM | link to this | reply