Thursday, May 25, 2006

From The Party Of Fiscal Responsibility...


Steve Sack, Minnesota, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune

Sometimes you don't have to say much. I wish people were more aware of the state of the nation and actually went out and did their bit as citizens which does not mean just vote. It also means being engaged and aware and being able to talk about stuff like this instead of just knowing about American Idle, or Britney or Lost.

That debt will have to be paid at some point during our lifetime or during the next generation.
The answer to this is nto that the economy is strong and blah this and that. If it is why are we not paying down the debt and doing more for our own country?

On a personal note, just been a busy week especially today at work. Don't have much energy to write about stuff or put up anything. Tomorrow will be a bit easier. TGIF :)

28 comments:

Keshi said...

hey Jay take it easy...n have a good one!

Keshi.

Teri said...

(nods head in agreement)
I'm too tired to say much, too.

Jordan's Dad said...

You must be tired - unless "American Idle" is an attempt at a pun. Taylor Hicks rules! Woo hoo Soul Patrol!

Anyway, about debt. Agreed that its best not to run up debt if you can avoid it. As I've said here many times, we should cut federal spending dramatically.

Moving on. Jay, I assume as a first time home-buyer that you took out a mortgage on your house. And that the amount of your mortgage is a few times more than your annual income. Lets say, for argument sake, your house cost 500k (it looks really nice). You put 20% down so you have a $400k mortgage. Maybe you also have student loans (I do). So lets say you're $450k in debt. Lets also say that your annual household income is $100k. So your debt is 4.5 times your annual income.

The current federal debt is about $8.3 trillion. Federal revenue from taxes and other sources this year will be about $2.2 trillion. So the national debt is about 4 times the annual revenue.

So, assuming your debt situation is correct (if its not, its probably not too far off), you would be just about as fiscally (ir)responsible as the current administration (and those that preceded it).

Mr. J said...

Yeh... TGIF ;)

Dadoji said...

I think what is important is the growth rate of the US national debt - also taking into account dollar exchange rate.

[sarcasm]
In any case, POTUS can always invade another country to wipe off some of that debt.
[/sarcasm]

Agarwaen Mormegil said...

bill clinton fixed budgets. reagan, bush jr. and sr. made huge bufget deficits.
isn't it the time the GOP stop their rants about being the party of fiscal responsibiliy?

karmic_jay said...

JD. I don't watch much TV, any I watch is mostly to get some "news".
Your argument about how the deficit is not so bad is disingeuous in comparinf the national debt to mortgages.
It's simple, cut the deficit by cutting spending and not tax giveaways, roll back the tax cuts but that is anathema to some.
This administration has grown government more than any other in recent history.
It's a time of war after all innit? So why should it only be the soldiers to sacrifice and fight?
Yellow ribbons about "supporting our troops" do nothing. National security is not just defense it also means to be in sound fiscal health. It's gotten worse since you know has been in power.

Teri said...

Debt in and of itself is not nessecarily problematic. If the debt is being using to finance capital expenditure (infrastructure growth) - anything where if you spend now, you reap rewards later.

The trouble with the current debt is that it's mostly financing consumption, not investment in infrastructure (by which I mean business infrastructure as well as governmental infrastructure).

Teri said...

*sighs*
Clearly, I haven't had enough coffee yet today. That's "neccesarily."

Teri said...

Okay, one more comment and I'm done.

Here's an intelligent and informative read on the whole current account deficit problem (which is what people mean when they talk about the "national debt" - at least that's what people mean most of the time, and the reasons it's inherently unsustainable.

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~nroubini/papers/Roubini-Setser-US-External-Imbalances.pdf

(just call me Comment Hog!)

karmic_jay said...

Teri, don't worry about being a comment hog.

As you so rightly point out there is good and bad debt.

Debt built up by give aways to the elite in our contry who are already well of has no returns to us. If we did we would have enough revenues to offset the debt, but we don't.

Debt that is being built up by sinking up to 290 billion in Iraq (and indirect costs are much more) has really no return.

If that money was used to help secure our borders, or like you know get a good rapid transit system or help poor working people with health care that would be something. But you clearly do't believe in that do you? In the long term this would help us more than rolling back the estate tax for the super rich.

Teri said...

did I say I was done commenting? Silly me!

I'm in favor or nationalized healthcare, actually. THere should be some basic level of care provided to everyone.

This does not mean that I think that the system we have in place now is broken so much as I think that national healthcare on some level is WAAAAAAAY more efficient than the medicare/medicaid system we currently have going. Both fiscally, and in terms of actually helping people who need the help. The sickest among us are usually the least able to deal with the red tape. Elective surgery, etc, should still be fee-for-service based, I think.

And DON'T get me started on that idiotic war in Iraq (bad consumption! It really is a form of consumption.). Stupid, expensive, needless bullshit, it is.

Jordan's Dad said...

Jay - do you even understand the difference between debt and a budget deficit? You always conflate the two.

Calling tax cuts "giveaways" is just ideological sophistry. Income taxes are by definition the "taking" of property (i.e., money) from individuals. Taking less money from an individual is not a "giveaway."

If I take $20 from you but decide to hand $5 back to you - have I "given" anything to you?

The top 1% we hear so much about (incomes over $300,000) accounts for about 20% of all income earned in the U.S. but accounts for approx. 35% of all tax revenue collected. That's fair?

karmic_jay said...

I am talking about national debt. A bigger budget deficit adds to a bigger national debt cos you borrow to make uop the shortfall.

Ya I feel the pain of the top 1%, their back breaking under the heavy tax burden, having to do with one less mansion.
I bet the 1% love you, cos you sure are doing a good job of fighting for them while they yuk it up.
I am fine with paying taxes as I am now as logn as they don't go to soe stupid war based on lies. I want them to make our country better, health care, infrastrutture, energy alternatives.

Oh wait you don't think seniors wondering if they can afford medicine or food deserve any help or the working poor without health isnurance.
Also you get something in return for what you pay. What you get is only as good as you pay in. By your interpretation we really should only do national defense eh?
One would expect some compassion and feeling about common good and your fellow citizens after someone has gone thru what you and your family has.
You and your wife were working and u had health isnurance for your family I assume. Who would pick up the tab if you did not? It would be the taxpayers. I believe that is fine, that is the price we pay for living in a civilized country. Do you agree the tax payers should do this?
Do you know people are driven to bankruptcy due to the having no medical coverage?
That we should have some sort of a national health care as Teri says?
But that expecting you to think and have to change positions, but you dont. whatever.
Enjoy your memorial day weekend.

Anonymous said...

Hey JD...that was a bit disingenious of you, wasn't it? Comparing income earned to taxes collected? What a joke. Try comparing WEALTH to taxes collected. Many very wealthy people do not come across their windfalls through taxable INCOME. I did read somewhere that Bill Gates alone has more wealth than the bottom 40% of the rest of the country combined.

Jordan's Dad said...

Anon - not disengenuous at all because we do not tax wealth, we tax income. I'm sure if the Dems could they would tax wealth and just start confiscating people's homes.

Who gets to decide who is rich? or how many houses someone can own? $300k a year might be stinkin' rich in some countries, but not in New York City. I'd prefer a fair tax system for all instead of penalizing those who do well.

Did you hear me that 1% of taxpayers pay 35% of the taxes?

That's not enought for you? how much should the 1% pay in Jayland? 50% 100%? How much money can one make, according to you, before the government can come take most of it?

Jordan's Dad said...

And Bill Gates did not inherit his money as far as I know. So, I'm guessing he has already paid taxes on the money he has. Should he have to pay taxes on that money again just because he's amassed a lot of it??

How about a comparison of how much tax revenue Gates is responsible for as compared with the average taxpayer?

You guys are just socialists. Keep the faith!

karmic_jay said...

JD.. name calling tut tut..
Who said anything about taking people's homes? or raising taxes?

Try sticking to the facts.
But i feel for ya, it's hard facts n all are not a strong suit for ya.

Jordan's Dad said...

Oh, a "roll back" of tax cuts is not raising taxes? Yeah, that argument worked real well for Kerry. Now who is being disingenuous?

I gave you facts:

The top 1% pays 35% of the taxes.

Your fact: Its not enough!

Puh-leez.

Anonymous said...

Bill Gates collected his loot from people like you and me who have paid for Microsoft products. Without the benefits afforded to him by this country, he never would've had the opportunity to rip us off. He should pay for this opportunity. Do you think it's good for somebody to amass obscene amounts of wealth while others die of starvation, exposure to the cold, and so on?

Anonymous said...

Prove your "fact", JD. The fact is that the top 1% has over 38% of the wealth in this country. That's a fact. They have nearly exactly the same amount of wealth as the "bottom" 95% of this country.

They're getting off easy.

Anonymous said...

I don't think anybody's home is going to get siezed just because the top 1% gets taxed slightly more, LOL. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Then again, JD, you are a typical conservative. Full of hot air, intentionally obtuse, and always picking fights instead of posting any original thoughts of your own.

Anonymous said...

Things are even more concentrated if you exclude owner-occupied housing. It is nice to own a house and it provides all kinds of benefits, but it is not very liquid. You can’t really dispose of it, because you need some place to live.

The top 1 percent of families hold half of all non-home wealth.

Chew on that, JD.

Jordan's Dad said...

So, anon, it is your position that people should be taxed on wealth that has already been taxed?

Or they should not be allowed to amass such wealth in the first place?

How much wealth is too much?

Do you even know what your position is?

Since you're a liberal, which means youre just a poorly informed socialist, probably not.

I think liberals (the ones that actually have jobs) should just voluntarily pay more taxes, since that's what they are constantly fighting for.

Id it is said...

We love to live on quick fixes and superficiality.

Never scratch too deep, lest you see the blood under.

Anonymous said...

LOL JD...I know what I stand for, and I know that you do NOT stand for that which is fair or just. You believe in blind, unfettered, winner-take-all, no-holds-barred capitalism without any checks or balances. You believe that we should steal from grandma every last dollar that we can, simply because we can. You believe that kids, who are poor, should be left to fend for themselves and survive on their own. That's the road down which your logic leads.

Wealth has not necessarily already been taxed. Besides, who said I was in favor of keeping an income tax if we went to a wealth tax-based model? You do not need to mix the two. After all, we don't tax wealth right now, do we? More disingenious, misleading comments from a typical conservative's runny mouth.

I believe that the more you consume, the more you should get taxed. That's neither a wealth-based model nor an income-based model.

LOL, you think that I don't have a job? Dream on. I have worked hard to get to this station in life, much harder than you, apparently. Those who come from humble roots tend to remember those humble roots and have more compassion for others. You clearly are a very sheltered, shallow person without a clue as to just how fragile your position in life is.

Anonymous said...

JD, since you love the idea of the Iraq war, why don't you suit up and go over there and fight? Put your body on the line. Or are you one of those Chickenhawks I read about all the time? All hot air, no substance.

Before you go refuting the logic of this post, re-read your most recent post to me and think about the logic that you used in your own post. Perhaps you should've thought it through a bit more...or are you a hypocrite in that you won't apply the same logic to yourself that you apply to those who you disagree with?

dem said...

JD is not worth debating. Like a typical conservative he ignores inconvenient facts, makes outrageous and indefensible claims, resorts to name-calling when he gets frustrated, and sidetracks topics with straw-man arguments according to his own agenda.

He should think twice about subscribing to the racist views of his party when he repeats that tired old canard about liberals being lazy and not contributing their fair share to the U.S. economy. First, unemployment rates are higher in non-urban settings, which tend to vote Republican. Second, most U.S. income is derived from urban areas, which are overwhelmingly liberal. Third, red states like North Dakota, Mississippi, Alaska, West Virginia, Montana, Alabama, South Dakota, and Arkansas top the list of federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid. And who's subsidizing their expenses? Blue states. More specifically, cities, and states dominated by their cities.

JD, I'm still waiting for your answers to my questions about media bias and what it would take for you to say the government had overstepped its authority.

I won't hold my breath.

Have a good weekend in your bizarro world.