Budget deficit

[cwelsch]

Doesn't the Department of Education give out grants to the states?

Yes.  It also does some civil rights stuff, in theory.  Mostly it's a pork Department designed to reward teachers' unions for their fealty.

Of course, federal funding of education in this country wavers around 6 to 8 percent of the total; the rest is state and local.  That doesn't include tuition fees or scholarships to private schools (or anything beyond high school).

If the block grants continue, as stated above, they could be disbursed by the Treasury directly.  Doesn't make a lot of sense to employ 4,000 people just so they can re-route some checks.

[cwelsch]

I'm glad most people said cut spending.

You probably wouldn't be so glad if you heard what they wanted to cut.  I'm sure a lot of Democrats want to cut the military, for example.

Which reminds me, I'd fire the drug czar and throw the ONDCP people out in the street.  The states can get their own drug prohibition bureaucrats if they want to waste time arresting potheads instead of rapists.

It's funny how Drug Control sounds so good to so many people who hate the very phrase Gun Control.

[Trilobyte]

The truth is the current tax rates are unsustainable. The libertarians like to call it a MASSIVE tax hike, but it's really just undoing the Bush tax cuts. If America could afford the taxes then, it can afford those taxes now. Americans were doing just fine in the Clinton years before the tax cuts.

[A18]

We just outlined plenty of spending cuts for keeping the tax rates where they are now.

What we need are not tax hikes, but tax reform. A 17% flat tax with a certain amount exempt would be ideal at this point.

[Emsworth]

Yes.  It also does some civil rights stuff, in theory.

It would make much more sense to let Justice handle these functions, as they have jurisdiction over other civil rights issues.

[TX_1824]

Why raise taxes to balance the budget? In the short run, the budget would balance, but shortly after the government will grow and thus consume more capital. Then we run into another deficit and would need another tax hike to balance that budget. Tax and spend got us in this situation and will continue in this monotonous pattern unless spending is cut and well regulated.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. "
-Benjamin Franklin

[Emsworth]

Why raise taxes to balance the budget? In the short run, the budget would balance, but shortly after the government will grow and thus consume more capital. Then we run into another deficit and would need another tax hike to balance that budget. Tax and spend got us in this situation and will continue in this monotonous pattern unless spending is cut and well regulated.

Taxing and spending are, contrary to the implications of the above post, mutually exclusive. My proposal would be not to raise taxes, but to temporarily rescind the recent tax cuts, while at the same time cutting spending. The surpluses generated thereby could be used to begin paying off the national debt. Once a significant part of the debt has been dispensed with, taxes could be lowered, as the surpluses would become superfluous.

[TX_1824]

Why raise taxes to balance the budget? In the short run, the budget would balance, but shortly after the government will grow and thus consume more capital. Then we run into another deficit and would need another tax hike to balance that budget. Tax and spend got us in this situation and will continue in this monotonous pattern unless spending is cut and well regulated.

Taxing and spending are, contrary to the implications of the above post, mutually exclusive. My proposal would be not to raise taxes, but to temporarily rescind the recent tax cuts, while at the same time cutting spending. The surpluses generated thereby could be used to begin paying off the national debt. Once a significant part of the debt has been dispensed with, taxes could be lowered, as the surpluses would become superfluous.

Well, I wasn't disagreeing with you. Since the Bush tax cuts were originally existing taxes, I have no problem with rolling back the cuts. I wouldn't consider it a tax hike. Then as spending is reduced to balance out the budget, Congress could consider reinstating the tax cut.

[A18]

By that logic, raising the top tax bracket to 70% is not raising taxes, because it used to be that during World War I.

[TX_1824]

By that logic, raising the top tax bracket to 70% is not raising taxes, because it used to be that during World War I.

I should say recent tax cuts. However, I could care less if the Bush tax cuts were rolled back or not. However, using the reasonable person standard, I don't honestly believe those considering to roll back tax cuts would look to WWI rates as a possibility. Those of us that were around during Jimmy Carter's administration would raise their voice if his tax policies were imposed. The top tax bracket, I believe, was around 70%.

[Emsworth]

By that logic, raising the top tax bracket to 70% is not raising taxes, because it used to be that during World War I.

I should say recent tax cuts. However, I could care less if the Bush tax cuts were rolled back or not. However, using the reasonable person standard, I don't honestly believe those considering to roll back tax cuts would look to WWI rates as a possibility. Those of us that were around during Jimmy Carter's administration would raise their voice if his tax policies were imposed. The top tax bracket, I believe, was around 70%.

IIRC from my history courses, the highest federal income tax rate the U.S. ever had was over 90% during WWII.

[A18]

What we need is a pro-growth tax system. A flat tax of about 17% with some amount exempted, like I said earlier.

And yes, the 90% thing is true, though I'm sure the ultra-rich found ways around that, like they do with the estate tax.

[David S]

That 21% figure is silly. Simply roll back the Bush tax cuts and we'd be seeing surpluses again.

The 21% figure is exactly what you would need if you apply it to all federal taxes. Do the math yourself if you like. BTW if there really were surpluses during the Clinton adminstration then the national debt would have been reduced. But the debt went up every year Clinton was in office. So there never were any real surpluses.

 And Clinton did start paying down the national debt; I recall in 2000 it was about $216 billion. It wasn't much but it was a start.

This is from the Bureau of the public debt; What year did it go down?
Answer -It didn't.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
Date                          Amount            
          
09/30/2000   $5,674,178,209,886.86      
09/30/1999   5,656,270,901,615.43      
09/30/1998   5,526,193,008,897.62      
09/30/1997   5,413,146,011,397.34      
09/30/1996   5,224,810,939,135.73      
09/29/1995   4,973,982,900,709.39      
09/30/1994   4,692,749,910,013.32      
09/30/1993   4,411,488,883,139.38      
09/30/1992   4,064,620,655,521.66      

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The tax cuts caused part of the deficit but spending went up much faster during the Bush administration than the Clinton administration so that's a factor too.

[Emsworth]

But there is no reason for the non-owners to support capitalism unless there's a good deal of progressive taxation and redistribution by the government. 

Taxes from "owners" and "non-owners" alike are not paid to support the capitalist system. They are intended to fund government services and programs, such as the military - which protects "owners" and "non-owners" alike. I admit that most of the public's tax dollars are wasted - for instance, on "faith-based initiatives" and the Department of Education - but this waste harms both "owners" and "non-owners."

[Citizen James]

That 21% figure is silly. Simply roll back the Bush tax cuts and we'd be seeing surpluses again.

The 21% figure is exactly what you would need if you apply it to all federal taxes. Do the math yourself if you like. BTW if there really were surpluses during the Clinton adminstration then the national debt would have been reduced. But the debt went up every year Clinton was in office. So there never were any real surpluses.

 And Clinton did start paying down the national debt; I recall in 2000 it was about $216 billion. It wasn't much but it was a start.

This is from the Bureau of the public debt; What year did it go down?
Answer -It didn't.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
Date                          Amount            
          
09/30/2000   $5,674,178,209,886.86      
09/30/1999   5,656,270,901,615.43      
09/30/1998   5,526,193,008,897.62      
09/30/1997   5,413,146,011,397.34      
09/30/1996   5,224,810,939,135.73      
09/29/1995   4,973,982,900,709.39      
09/30/1994   4,692,749,910,013.32      
09/30/1993   4,411,488,883,139.38      
09/30/1992   4,064,620,655,521.66      

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The tax cuts caused part of the deficit but spending went up much faster during the Bush administration than the Clinton administration so that's a factor too.

Though the debt didn't go down under Clinton, the privately held part of it did (the is debt held by individuals).   Part of this was because the social security surplus was used to buy up large shares of the privately held debt so that part of the debt is money the government owes to itself.

Bush, however started increasing the privately held debt again with his borrow and spend policies, which I consider to be at least as destructive as taxes.  Deficit spending takes capital out of the economy just as surely as taxes do, plus it adds interest and decreases confidence in the economy.

A combination of a rollback to 2000 levels and cutting pork across the board (Including pork labeled as "millitary spending" - which often gets a free pass.   SDI has no real purpose beyond being a form of corporate welfare that sucks up billions of taxpayer dollars.) should get us back in the black again.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ok, on-budget counts money borrowed from SS, off-budget doesn't.

Surpluses:
1999 on $1.9B off $125.5B
2000 on $86.3B off $236.2B

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0#table1

For complicated reasons, the national debt didn't go down in non-inflation adjusted dollars in any calender year, but the real debt, and the debt as fraction of GDP went down.

[Bono]

End all state grants.

[David S]

3. We don't even know how $9 billion in Iraq got spent. It was dispursed in unmarked bills. There's definitely ways to reduce spending without hurting anyone but the corrupt.

Just imagine the mind-boggling corruption that must be going on over there, and in the military, right now!  Makes me think of Milo Minderbinder.  From Catch-22:
"This time Milo had gone to far. Bombing his own men and planes was more than even the most phlegmatic observer could stomach, and it looked like the end for him...Milo was all washed up until he opened his books to the public and disclosed the tremendous profit he had made."
http://www.bookrags.com/notes/c22/QUO.htm

Ah yes I remember old Milo. C02 cartridges for inflating life rafts turned up missing. Seems Milo appropriated them to make sodas in the officers club. Funny book, but just a book.