Is this a wise amendment?

[Durandal]

Stimulate the economy. You certainly don't raise taxes while in a recession.

No, but you don't cut them to stimulate the economy while in a recession either. After losing so much money in the stock market, retirement funds and whatever else, people aren't going to run off and madly spend the money they save on taxes; they're going to save it for a rainy day.

Cutting taxes and reducing the interest rate might get some people out there and spending their money, but taxes are a sure way for the government to take in money, while cutting taxes to stimulate the economy is something of a gamble, especially in the midst of an economic depression caused by corporate mistrust. In an economically prosperous period, cutting taxes is a good idea because people will be more willing to spend their money, but it's not a cure-all solution to economic downturns. I think that the best thing would be to sit back and let Greenspan's toying with the interest rate last year take effect and not play with taxes.

That's just my opinion based on a rudimentary understanding of economics, though.

[Joe]

No, but you don't cut them to stimulate the economy while in a recession either. After losing so much money in the stock market, retirement funds and whatever else, people aren't going to run off and madly spend the money they save on taxes; they're going to save it for a rainy day.

Better in a savings account than the federal black hole. Any money released back to the market is going to be beneficial. Incidentally, what else is there to do to stimulate the economy BESIDES tax cuts?

Cutting taxes and reducing the interest rate might get some people out there and spending their money, but taxes are a sure way for the government to take in money, while cutting taxes to stimulate the economy is something of a gamble, especially in the midst of an economic depression caused by corporate mistrust.

Corporate mistrust (the latest buzzword) is a symptom of the recession, not the cause.

The correct thing to do would be to cut spending and cut taxes. We all have to cut our spending when strapped for cash; so should the government.

In an economically prosperous period, cutting taxes is a good idea because people will be more willing to spend their money, but it's not a cure-all solution to economic downturns. I think that the best thing would be to sit back and let Greenspan's toying with the interest rate last year take effect and not play with taxes.

Greenspan is running out of weapons. There is no effective tool other than tax cuts to give some stimulation to the economy, regardless of how slight that effect is.

[Glocksman]

You seem to forget that Clinton was running a surplus.

Folks, the Constitution states that all revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives, not the Executive branch.

Presidents can and do submit proposed budgets, but it's Congress in the end who actually allocates the monies. Anyone remember the 80's when Tip O'Neill (Speaker of the House) kept proclaiming Reagan's proposed budgets 'Dead on Arrival'?

It's no coincidence that the 'surpluses' came into being after the Republicans took control of the House after the 94 elections.

The resulting budgets were compromises between what Clinton wanted on the one hand and what the House wanted on the other.

Without the pressure to compromise with the House, none of BC's budgets would have showed a surplus or a balance even after a massaging by Arthur Andersen.

The late 90's 'surpluses' were no more solely Clinton's doing any more than the 80's deficits were solely Reagan's doing.

[Darth Wong]

No, but you don't cut them to stimulate the economy while in a recession either. After losing so much money in the stock market, retirement funds and whatever else, people aren't going to run off and madly spend the money they save on taxes; they're going to save it for a rainy day.

Better in a savings account than the federal black hole. Any money released back to the market is going to be beneficial.

What if the government would have paid down the national debt with it? Would it still be beneficial to have it sitting in private savings accounts? If you had a huge credit card bill, would you keep excess money in a chequing account instead of paying it off?

The correct thing to do would be to cut spending and cut taxes. We all have to cut our spending when strapped for cash; so should the government.

Depends on the situation. With a high debt load, a spending cut and tax freeze (or perhaps even a raise) might make sense.

Greenspan is running out of weapons. There is no effective tool other than tax cuts to give some stimulation to the economy, regardless of how slight that effect is.

At what long-term cost?

[Rubberanvil]

Otherwise, it's much less. Military spending right now takes up about about 16 percent of expenditures.

A huge chunk of the military's money is spent on medical care for its soldiers, dependents (spouse and children), and retirees. Education for the soldiers (college), and their children (K-12). Paying the base's equivalent of property taxes to the local communities. For overseas base it paying the leases to the host countries.

Given the military is completely dependant on civilian companies for mudane goods, everything from toliet paper, office supplies, computers, and non-military software (MS Word for example). A lot of those companies overcharge the military several times over what another civilian company would be charge.

[Joe]

What if the government would have paid down the national debt with it? Would it still be beneficial to have it sitting in private savings accounts? If you had a huge credit card bill, would you keep excess money in a chequing account instead of paying it off?

The national debt isn't such an urgent liability to where we can't afford to lighten the tax burden in this country a little bit. It would be nice if the government would use that money to pay down the national debt, but let's face it, that won't happen. It will either be spent or it will not be collected at all, and I prefer the latter. These are not massive tax cuts we're talking about here.

Depends on the situation. With a high debt load, a spending cut and tax freeze (or perhaps even a raise) might make sense.

No, you never raise taxes during a recession; even the Keynesians realized this. Herbert Hoover raised taxes after the Great Depression hit and it was disastrous for the economy. The correct response is a spending cut and at least something to stimulate the economy.

At what long-term cost?

There are plenty of things fucking up this country's budget. A few piddling tax cuts aren't going to hurt much.

I agree with you; the best alternative here would be spending cuts across the board, and using that money to help pay down the national debt, plus a few tax cuts as well. But that will never happen.

[Queeb Salaron]

There are plenty of things fucking up this country's budget. A few piddling tax cuts aren't going to hurt much.

I'm not that good with macro-economics... Is $550 billion really a "piddling tax cut"?

[Joe]

There are plenty of things fucking up this country's budget. A few piddling tax cuts aren't going to hurt much.

I'm not that good with macro-economics... Is $550 billion really a "piddling tax cut"?

Over ten years? Hell yes.

[Ted]

What of INCREASING the interest rate?

The Bank of Canada is doing that, and the economy here is fine, hell, the Canadian dollar is getting more investment.

[Joe]

What of INCREASING the interest rate?

The Bank of Canada is doing that, and the economy here is fine, hell, the Canadian dollar is getting more investment.

Won't help. That will just discourage investment. The best thing to do, now that it has once and for all been proven that the chairman of the Federal Reserve is not God of the economy, is to let the economy recover by itself. Massive spending cuts and massive tax cuts to accompany those would help, but that won't happen.

[Sea Skimmer]

I'm not that good with macro-economics... Is $550 billion really a "piddling tax cut"?

Thats only 55 billion a year over ten years, the US Federal budget is in the trillions, per year. Its really nothing and simply cutting some pork which there has been a massive surge of would easily make it back.

Course that also wont happen.

[RedImperator]

Give me a chainsaw and a copy of the Federal budget and I'll have the national debt paid off in 10 years and a big fat tax cut for everybody by tomorrow afternoon.

[Beowulf]

Stimulate the economy. You certainly don't raise taxes while in a recession.

No, but you don't cut them to stimulate the economy while in a recession either. After losing so much money in the stock market, retirement funds and whatever else, people aren't going to run off and madly spend the money they save on taxes; they're going to save it for a rainy day.

And where do they save it? The bank. What does the bank do with the money? It uses it for loans and such, effectively increasing the amount of money incirculation, and thereby helping to stimulate the economy.

This is just from my rudimentary knowledge of economics though.

[Joe]

Stimulate the economy. You certainly don't raise taxes while in a recession.

No, but you don't cut them to stimulate the economy while in a recession either. After losing so much money in the stock market, retirement funds and whatever else, people aren't going to run off and madly spend the money they save on taxes; they're going to save it for a rainy day.

And where do they save it? The bank. What does the bank do with the money? It uses it for loans and such, effectively increasing the amount of money incirculation, and thereby helping to stimulate the economy.

This is just from my rudimentary knowledge of economics though.

Exactly; better in savings accounts than spent on bullshit discretionary spending projects.

[Iceberg]

The producers are the ones with the means to create jobs and wealth.

But do they actually create jobs and wealth with corporate welfare tax breaks, or do they give their CEOs more payraises, more pussy on company money, or stash it in off-shore accounts?

They create jobs and wealth. You have to invest to stay in business.

That's the theory, anyway. The reality for the last 10 years, thanks to progressive lifting of regulations on corporate finance, is that most of the money goes straight into the CEO's pocket.

Based on a 2,000 hour working year, the average CEO makes $2,400 dollars an hour. Before bonuses, incentives, health care and options.

[Iceberg]

And yes, in fact, I *do* know what I'm talking about. My dad is the CFO of Allianz Marketing, Inc. (the marketing firm for the US branch of Allianz AG), and I've seen his tax returns in recent years.

Now Allianz is a very successful company (the third largest corporation in the world), and I'm quite sure that the executives aren't taking harmfully large amounts of money (or it wouldn't be the third largest corporation in the world), but by his own admission, Dad's making more money than he really should be, given what his job entails (BTW, he hates golf and he's terrible at it ).

[Joe]

But do they actually create jobs and wealth with corporate welfare tax breaks, or do they give their CEOs more payraises, more pussy on company money, or stash it in off-shore accounts?

They create jobs and wealth. You have to invest to stay in business.

That's the theory, anyway. The reality for the last 10 years, thanks to progressive lifting of regulations on corporate finance, is that most of the money goes straight into the CEO's pocket.

Based on a 2,000 hour working year, the average CEO makes $2,400 dollars an hour. Before bonuses, incentives, health care and options.

Even if it does go into the pockets of CEOs, which I would like to see some evidence beyond anecdotal stories for, it still benefits the economy; if the CEO buys a yacht, it stimulates the yacht industry. If the CEO invests it, it creates jobs and wealth elsewhere. If the CEO lets it sit in the bank, it allows that bank to make more loans.

[Queeb Salaron]

Give me a chainsaw and a copy of the Federal budget and I'll have the national debt paid off in 10 years and a big fat tax cut for everybody by tomorrow afternoon.

Or we could hold Bill Gates and Donald Trump at gunpoint, have them write in their will that all their stocks are to be cashed and all their money to be given to the government to pay off the national debt, and then throw them both off the top of Trump Towers. The national debt could be paid off tomorrow.

I'm sure we'd name a monument or two after them, at least. And I bet the funerals would be nice. I'd go just to see what they put in the finger sandwiches. Caviar, I bet.

Pay no attention to the anti-numbers guy.

[Joe]

Indeed. Gates' and Trump's fortune combined would be little more than a drop in the bucket of our national debt.

[Iceberg]

Gates's fortune is sitting somewhere around 100 billion dollars right now; for scale, that's about 2% of the national debt (which, IIRC, is at or around 5 trillion dollars).

[Queeb Salaron]

Gates's fortune is sitting somewhere around 100 billion dollars right now; for scale, that's about 2% of the national debt (which, IIRC, is at or around 5 trillion dollars).

Again, pay no attention to the numbers-hater.

[Joe]

Gates's fortune is sitting somewhere around 100 billion dollars right now; for scale, that's about 2% of the national debt (which, IIRC, is at or around 5 trillion dollars).

Hundred billion? No way; based on Microsoft's stock price, it's only around 30 billion.

[Raptor 597]

Actually, most of Gate's fortune is placed in consumer and so his Microsoft. When forced to give up profits watch his stocks crumble.

[Ignorant twit]

Taxation comes down the the Laffer curve if you are to the right of T*, then in a recession you most certainly SHOULD cut taxes.

Of course finding T* is anyone's guess.

[Durandal]

Better in a savings account than the federal black hole. Any money released back to the market is going to be beneficial. Incidentally, what else is there to do to stimulate the economy BESIDES tax cuts?

Leave it the Hell alone. The economy is a chaotic system, and all the economic prognosticating by all the Nobel prize-winning economists won't change that.

Corporate mistrust (the latest buzzword) is a symptom of the recession, not the cause.

So the people who lost their retirement funds and jobs should blame the recession and not dirty accounting practices by Enron?

The correct thing to do would be to cut spending and cut taxes. We all have to cut our spending when strapped for cash; so should the government.

First outlaw any and all lobbying, then we can talk about cutting spending. Hell, cutting the War on Drugs alone might even do it.

Greenspan is running out of weapons. There is no effective tool other than tax cuts to give some stimulation to the economy, regardless of how slight that effect is.

But will the effect give the government more money than if it had simply left the tax rates alone? That's the gamble, and people who gamble to pay their debts don't usually come out on top.