 |
|  |
 |
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
One of the tenants of the new conservatives, or neocons, in the US is "starve the beast". That is, run up large deficits so the goverrnment cannot start/invest/waste (depending on your spin) money on new programs. Thus the huge deficits are not a problem. The resulting government debt will keep "the beast" in check.
Whatever the reason, that course will eventually, in 10 to 20 years, destroy the US military. Every country who has seen their economy tank has also seen massive damage to their military complex. Whether Russia during the economic contraction following the demise of the Soviet Union, Great Britian at the start of WW2 (that's why the US got bases for the WW1 destroyers, GB was out of gold reserves), the USA at multiple points in it's history (post Civil War is an excellent example), in general a world class military cannot survice a fiscally starved government.
For those "supply-side economics" (better known as voodoo ecomics - by Bush Sr.) please understand that we are not talking dogma, only economics. What I mean by that is if supply-side economics was truly science, they would calculate based on hard (though projected) numbers the point of diminishing returns, i.e. if you cut taxes below a certain point the government will have less money, period.
If any of you supply-side types can show, using standard economic statistical methods, where the sweet spot is, i.e. take taxes to exactly this point and the government optimizes between growth and being a drag on the economy, such that you optimize growth and tax revenue, then post on the issue. Please feel free to submit this to the Nobel committee, while starting your own thread This thread is for the "starve the beast" mantra, huge deficits, and the resulting damage to the US military, if not reduction to a second class power.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CerberusIV
|
|
So which Democrats are going to get elected and then turn round and say "As the Republicans have shafted the government's finances all the military has to go" and how many senators and congressmen will stand by and watch bases and contractors close and the local economies and jobs of those whose votes they want disappear?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:32
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GhengisFarb
You just can't get anything right can you? 
They didn't vote for it because it added BILLIONS in NEW spending, once again your tax and spend Democrats verus your cut the spending Repubicans.  |
Uh, wrong. Clinton cut spending to the lowest levels as a percentage of the GDP since 1966. The spending restraint under Clinton brought spending down from 22.2 percent of GDP in 1992 to 18.5 percent of GDP in 2000 -- the lowest since 1966. Non-defense discretionary Federal spending as a share of the economy was the lowest on record. Such spending fell from 3.7 percent of GDP in 1992 to 3.3 percent of GDP in 1999 -- the lowest as a share of the economy on record. Over this period, total discretionary spending fell from 8.6 percent of GDP to 6.3 percent of GDP, also the lowest on record.
Clinton also reduced the Federal work force. The Federal civilian workforce increased from when President Reagan took office to when President Bush left office. Under Clinton, the Federal workforce wascut by 377,000 -- nearly a fifth -- and is now lower than any time since 1960.
Clinton did this all while reducing taxes on the middle class. The total Federal tax rate for middle-income families has dropped from 24.5 percent in 1992 to 22.8 percent in 1999 – that’s the lowest tax rate since 1978. For families at one-half the median income, the effective Federal tax rate was slashed from 19.8 percent in 1992 to 14.1 percent in 1999 – that’s the lowest tax rate since 1968.
Any more "tax and spend" nonesense?
quote: When did we bring Reagan into this? We were talking Dubya versus Clinton. If ANY Republican President can be substituted for any other one, can I subsitute Jefferson Davis for Clinton? Their both Democrat Presidents. |
You can't even follow the previous points. You asserted all Dems were tax n spend and Repubs were spending reducers. I pointed out the Republican icon, Reagan, increased spending dramatically. You responded with the false notion that it was all the Dems fault--and I was responding to that. Keep up!
quote: Oh, my bad, couldn't come up with any evidence in your favor could you? Better luck next time. |
Erm, I'm looking for some evidence for any of your points here, don't seem to see any... sorry!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970 time: 00:32
|
|
quote: Nor did I say he cut taxes for everyone--but he did make significant targeted tax cuts for the middle class, which was all that was stated. |
I would have to see your numbers. As it stands, I have no reason to believe them and every reason to doubt them.
Remember that in our federal tax system, tax rates naturally increase for everybody in every year in which we have real wage growth. This impacted the middle class, since real wages increased for them during Clinton's terms.
Last edited by DanS on 12-12-2003 at 00:51
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32. Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|