Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bush ruling out tax hike for N.O rebuilding
America's Debate > Archive > Policy Debate Archive > [A] Domestic Policy
Google
skeeterses
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...wh/katrina_bush

This is another example of Bush putting ideology above practical realities. Just where does Bush think the money is coming from?! Cutting medicare would be political suicide for Congress. Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of cutting those RobinHood in reverse programs. It just aint going to happen.

At this point, I am wondering if there's anything left that Bush can debate on besides a few moral issues.

Questions for debate:
-------------------------
1.) Should Bush raise taxes for the New Orleans rebuilding?

2.) If not, where should the money come from?
Google
Izdaari
1.) Should Bush raise taxes for the New Orleans rebuilding?

IMHO, that would be the worst thing to do. The economy is already taking a big hit from the effects of Katrina, and now you want to do something to smack it down it even more?

2.) If not, where should the money come from?

Cut programs. There's an enormous amount of waste in the current budget, and it isn't like Bush hasn't been the biggest spending President of all time. Like about half of the last huge transportation bill, which was about 50% pork.
BecomingHuman
QUOTE
Cut programs. There's an enormous amount of waste in the current budget, and it isn't like Bush hasn't been the biggest spending President of all time. Like about half of the last huge transportation bill, which was about 50% pork.

Cut programs? There is 200 billion dollars worth of pork you can find to cut? If that is the case, why didn't Bush just cut this pork before in order to fund the Iraq war instead of going into billions of dollars of debt?

I mean, lets be honest here. The only place Bush can come up with this amount of money is if he borrows it. Which should, ironically, crowed out private business's, increase interest rates and slow GDP growth even more because of the expense of money.
CruisingRam
1.) Should Bush raise taxes for the New Orleans rebuilding?

Yes, but they should be group specific- all firms that profited from Iraq should be taxed, with thier board members being taxed at 98% of thier total worth, then all supporters of president bush- they elected this guy, let them pay for his mistakes- I think breakdown of "red" counties would be about right- tax them, and them only, based on thier support of the republican party. (okay, being sarcastic, it is just sad that others have to pay for those that supported this guy)

2.) If not, where should the money come from?

There are only four items that have enough size between them to cut 200 billion total

1) capital projects (transportation bill as pointed out, NCLB, Homeland security- not a capital project- but it funds like one)

2) Social security

3) Medicaid

4) Medicare

any suggestion to cut anywhere else is just fluff- just not enough money there- we could end foodstamps and welfare tomorow- doesn't even come close

The most logical would be to cut our losses in Iraq, cut all spending in Iraq, cut all bases outside US borders, and come protect our actual country, instead of corporate America's personal empires. That would save enough easily- but it ain't happening either, is it?
Dontreadonme
1.) Should Bush raise taxes for the New Orleans rebuilding?
Of course the question should realistically be worded: should Congress raise taxes for NO rebuilding........but then we couldn't repeat the blame Bush meme's and scripts......
As of right now, definitely not. To begin with, all numbers being bandied about concerning reconstruction and rehabilitation are estimates. Why are we talking about a tax hike when we haven't tallied the cost and discussed a breakdown on what and where federal and state monies should be spent on?

2.) If not, where should the money come from?
I don't exactly work for the GAO, but after five years of George 'never veto a spending bill' Bush, there simply has to be many areas where belt tightening and outright program cancellation can raise much of the money.

Citizens Against Government Waste has issued a challenge to congress to oppose any addition of pork into any bill aimed at Katrina relief. Some example they provide give an indication of past abuses.

QUOTE
Congressional leaders expect to negotiate an emergency supplemental spending bill when Congress reconvenes next week.  Hurricane Katrina has been called the most expensive disaster in the country’s history.  One expert said that federal aid could top $30 billion, which will add to the $331 billion deficit predicted for fiscal 2005.           
 
“In the past, Congress has shortchanged our troops, disaster victims, and taxpayers by including self-serving pork projects in emergency spending bills,” CAGW President Tom Schatz said.  “Maybe this time, the widespread devastation and loss of life will shame them into forgoing egregious spending that will hinder recovery efforts and add to the deficit.”

Link

QUOTE(CruisingRam Yesterday @ 06:13 PM)
then all supporters of president bush- they elected this guy, let them pay for his mistakes 
[...] 
it is just sad that others have to pay for those that supported this guy

I'm not sure if the entire paragraph was intended as sarcasm. In the spirit of fairness, I assume you would also support the taxing of Nagin and Blanco voters as well?
Amlord
1.) Should Bush raise taxes for the New Orleans rebuilding?

The economic recovery that we are experiencing is tied directly to tax cuts. The lower than expected budget deficit for 2004 was also tied directly to the booming economy.

Projections have tax receipts rising 14% over last year. Those tax cuts are really cutting into our ability to pay the bills rolleyes.gif . Tax receipts have risen in the last two years. I expect them to rise again next year.

The fact is that a lower level of taxes stimulates the economy, which generates more taxes.

2.) If not, where should the money come from?

I whole-hearted believe that this type of expenditure needs to be funded by offsets. That is, other projects must be cut to make room for this expenditure.

First off, the Medicair prescription benefit can be delayed by 1 year. $40 billion there. No one loses benefits that they were counting on, they simply get them later.

The transportation bill has about $24 billion in "earmarks". Those could be eliminated.

That's $60 billion right there.
Argonaut
QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 19 2005, 06:32 AM)
2.) If not, where should the money come from?

I whole-hearted believe that this type of expenditure needs to be funded by offsets.  That is, other projects must be cut to make room for this expenditure.

First off, the Medicair prescription benefit can be delayed by 1 year.  $40 billion there.  No one loses benefits that they were counting on, they simply get them later.

The transportation bill has about $24 billion in "earmarks".  Those could be eliminated. 

That's $60 billion right there.
*



Moreover Amlord, we know that the $200 billion will not be spent in just one fiscal year. If total reconstruction takes 3 years (a conservative guess I think) we are talking about $70 billion per year in spending cuts.

Amlord's medicare suggestion gets us over halfway there in one fell swoop. smile.gif

Another idea (sparked by CruisingRam's suggestion) might be to raise the tax rate to 99.9 % of total worth solely on the "wealthy" Democrats, "liberals", and "others" who perpetually advocate higher taxation. thumbsup.gif
Julian
2.) If not, where should the money come from?

If the following extract from the President's recent speech (with my emphasis) is anything to go by, a big chunk of it will come from the recently unhomed themselves, and from charitable donations...

QUOTE( The President of the United States)
To help lower-income citizens in the hurricane region build new and better lives, I also propose that Congress pass an Urban Homesteading Act. Under this approach, we will identify property in the region owned by the federal government, and provide building sites to low-income citizens free of charge, through a lottery.

In return, they would pledge to build on the lot, with either a mortgage or help from a charitable organization like Habitat for Humanity. Home ownership is one of the great strengths of any community, and it must be a central part of our vision for the revival of this region.


"Property in the region owned by the federal government"? So, not inside NO city limits, then? Wouldn't this type of relocation have adequately described the Indian Reservations? *

Presumably the $5,000 worker recovery accounts will pay for the training to take the jobs people will need to be able to service the debts the government is going to require them to pledge to take on, and the entraprenoo-ers who are going to suddenly flood the region with quality, well-paid jobs (yeah, right!) will be providing all the shiny pennies to pay the banks and S&Ls the billions of dollars of profits they be able to make from the interest will charge on all those mortgages.

They also be able to repossess the land AND built property, presumably at the full market value, including the free federal land that's being given away, if & when the people find the jobs don't materialise and they can't pay their mortgages. And thus with a wave of the Federal magic wand, The Base will be able to get even richer on the public nipple than they would otherwise have done.

Of course, none of that HAS to happen. I'd love to be proven wrong. But let's wait and see, shall we?

*Then again, if this is going to happen, maybe the New Orleans poor might be able to open casinos on their new land, and they'll have the last laugh after all. But I doubt it.
Fife and Drum
QUOTE(Amlord)
The economic recovery that we are experiencing is tied directly to tax cuts. The lower than expected budget deficit for 2004 was also tied directly to the booming economy.

If you could even come close to proving that our economy is “booming” and the reasons are tied to the tax cuts than I might start to believe in trickle down. Else this is pure rhetoric.

With GM laying off 24,000 employees over the next 3 years and Hewlett Packard laying off 14,00 employees this year we’ll probably need to discuss “booming” but that’s’ for another thread


1.) Should Bush raise taxes for the New Orleans rebuilding?

I was never a proponent of Bush’s tax cut, he had a real opportunity and choked on a pretzel. The tax cut was a political move that for most of us who have followed politics for decades could read right through. First, it was a good way to ensure a second term and second, if/when the Democrats gain back control of the White House and/or congress and raise taxes then the Republicans can point their fingers and say “See, those tax and spend Dems just want more of your money”. Bookmark this comment and check back in a few years.

Taxes should be raised and not only for the NO rebuild. We’re spiraling out of control with our spending, the Iraq mess shows no immediate signs of a resolution and since we appear to be in a cycle of extremely damaging hurricanes Katrina may only be the tip of the iceberg. The massive debt does more to harm our economy than repealing the tax break.

Can you say interest?
Dontreadonme
QUOTE(Julian @ Sep 19 2005, 12:05 PM)
If the following extract from the President's recent speech (with my emphasis) is anything to go by, a big chunk of it will come from the recently unhomed themselves, and from charitable donations...

Again, what must first happen is for an accounting of what losses and reconstruction can be covered by what monies.
But if the federal government follows the law, it is compelled to cover 75% of costs for rebuilding those entities allowed to be covered federal dollars. This is waiverable up to 100% by the president. The applicable law is the 1988 Stafford Act.
Google
Julian
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 19 2005, 06:21 PM)
QUOTE(Julian @ Sep 19 2005, 12:05 PM)
If the following extract from the President's recent speech (with my emphasis) is anything to go by, a big chunk of it will come from the recently unhomed themselves, and from charitable donations...

Again, what must first happen is for an accounting of what losses and reconstruction can be covered by what monies.
But if the federal government follows the law, it is compelled to cover 75% of costs for rebuilding those entities allowed to be covered federal dollars. This is waiverable up to 100% by the president. The applicable law is the 1988 Stafford Act.
*



Quite possibly - the President is already proposing federal assistance to rebuild businesses in New Orleans and other affected areas. This might, quite conceivably, come to 75% of the overall reconstructive costs. There is, however, no commitment (yet?) to build affordable housing for the poor in the reconstruction areas.

What if the other 25% - the 25% that doesn't HAVE to come from the Federal coffers - ends up covering the costs of rehousing the displaced poor, and is funded through debts forced upon them by the proposed reconstruction process?

Imagine "You can rebuild, but you can only do it where we tell you, and you can only fund it with a loan secured against the property you're going to build. You could ask for charity, and we wish you good luck in doing so, but we aren't going to pay for you to stay in that motel or apartment while you try to raise the cash, so don't take too long to decide if you want to stay dry and warm this winter. Happy homebuying..."

I don't for a moment suggest this is the only possible interpretation of those crucial paragraphs of the President's speech. It is a perfectly logical, if overly cynical, inference, based on the information given in the President's speech the other day.

And this nightmare scenario could quite credibly satisfy the legal obligations you mention.

So how is my assertion, which you quoted, impossible (or even unlikely)?
Dontreadonme
The unhomed will obviously have to pony up for their loss, at least those who are private homeowners. If they chose to live in a flood plain (read: soup bowl) and didn't have flood insurance, or couldn't get coverage, woe be to them. For those in low income housing, I don't know the answer, but if private administered, wouldn't they have insurance of some sort? Projects run by the city or parish would most likely receive federal funds funneled through the state.
When assistance is mentioned, how much are we speaking of? Total reimbursement? Grants? Loans?
I am honestly woefully uniformed about how federal money will be allocated for Katrina; I may not be the only one since there is talk of appointing a 'Katrina Czar'
Julian
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Sep 19 2005, 07:03 PM)
The unhomed will obviously have to pony up for their loss, at least those who are private homeowners. If they chose to live in a flood plain (read: soup bowl) and didn't have flood insurance, or couldn't get coverage, woe be to them.
*



I don't know how buildings insurance works in the US, but in the UK, there are usually exceptions for war, terrorism, earthquake, tornado, hurricane, etc. The common uniting phrase for such unpredictable events is "Acts of God". Maybe these are excluded here because they are comparatively rarer and less severe (we've only had one hurricane in my lifetime, and although we get more tornados per unit areas that Tornado Alley, they are usually much smaller in scale).

If they are excluded in the Katrina-affected areas, you are in effect saying "woe betide them for living in New Orleans & the Gulf Coast". If the Federal government hadn't already spent big money on Florida after they got flattened a few years back, I could se your point. As it is, I wonder whether you have severe hypotension, as you seem to be a bit heartless.

QUOTE
For those in low income  housing, I don't know the answer, but if private administered, wouldn't they have insurance of some sort?


Paid for by whom? Again, in a private letting in the UK, the landlord would normally be responsible for buildings insurance. Tenants would only have to cover their own possessions ("contents" insurance). If the landlord cut corners and din't bother to buy any building insurance, why should the tenants be saddled with the debts to rehouse themselves. Again if people are so poor that they have to live in low income housing, it's normally because they cannot afford a mortgage to buy their own home, not a matter of choice. So I worry that, because there is no mention of zero-rating or government subsidy of these mooted mortgages for rehousing, the poor are going to end up paying through the nose while the rich landlords (ok, richer) get away scot-free.


QUOTE
Projects run by the city or parish would most likely receive federal funds funneled through the state. 
When assistance is mentioned, how much are we speaking of? Total reimbursement? Grants? Loans?
I am honestly woefully uniformed about how federal money will be allocated for Katrina; I may not be the only one since there is talk of appointing a 'Katrina Czar'

Can't help you here, as I don't know either. I suspect it has not been decided yet, but that unless vested interests are kept well away from the decision making process, the people paying the biggest lobbying fees will come out winning. Recent history, and the award of no-bid contracts already for ealry reconstruction efforts, do not bode especially well.

Dontreadonme
QUOTE(Julian @ Sep 19 2005, 01:36 PM)

QUOTE
For those in low income  housing, I don't know the answer, but if private administered, wouldn't they have insurance of some sort?


Paid for by whom? Again, in a private letting in the UK, the landlord would normally be responsible for buildings insurance. Tenants would only have to cover their own possessions ("contents" insurance). If the landlord cut corners and didn't bother to buy any building insurance, why should the tenants be saddled with the debts to rehouse themselves. Again if people are so poor that they have to live in low income housing, it's normally because they cannot afford a mortgage to buy their own home, not a matter of choice. So I worry that, because there is no mention of zero-rating or government subsidy of these mooted mortgages for rehousing, the poor are going to end up paying through the nose while the rich landlords (ok, richer) get away scot-free.


Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was referring to insurance on low income housing paid for by the owners/administrators. I highly doubt that the city of NO would allow any project to be uninsured, though I don't know the status of flood insurance when speaking of city or city chartered buildings.

But speaking towards my heartlessness, if I live in tornado alley, flood zone or straddling the San Andreas Fault, I know the hazards of my location, and I don't expect the federal government to come bail me out and build me a new house if a disaster strikes. If my insurance covers it, great; if not, then I live by the risks and chances that I take. I'm not anti-assistance, but how much tax payer dollars should realistically be spent to re-house people who may not have provided themselves any type of safety net?
I think job training, relocation and housing assistance should be provided for low income evacuees, but I can't see a tax hike that will affect a geographical area that is struggling to recover, is the answer.
Cube Jockey
QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 19 2005, 06:32 AM)
Projections have tax receipts rising 14% over last year.  Those tax cuts are really cutting into our ability to pay the bills  rolleyes.gif .  Tax receipts have risen in the last two years.  I expect them to rise again next year.
*


Where exactly are you getting this information? This site has the actual tax receipts for every year from 1940 to 2004 with projections on 2005 to 2009 straight from the Office of Budget and Management. You can view it in current dollars or dollars adjusted to 2000.

So here are the tax receipts adjusted to 2000 dollars from 2000 to 2004.
2000: 2,025.2
2001: 1,945.7
2002: 1,780.5
2003: 1,677.7
2004: 1,722.1

hmmm.gif I'm not seeing an increase in tax receipts, in fact quite the opposite Amlord. Furthermore if you look at what we are spending that is increasing as the amount we are taking in is decreasing, genius economic policy if you ask me. /end sarcasm
Amlord
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Sep 19 2005, 03:50 PM)
hmmm.gif I'm not seeing an increase in tax receipts, in fact quite the opposite Amlord.  Furthermore if you look at what we are spending that is increasing as the amount we are taking in is decreasing, genius economic policy if you ask me. /end sarcasm
*



I got my figures from the OMB

QUOTE
Our Growing Economy Is Improving The Federal Budget

� The Improved Fiscal Outlook Is Directly Tied To The Strength Of The Economy. With the help of tax relief, the U.S. economy is growing at a healthy pace, creating millions of new jobs and increasing business investment.

� A Growing Economy Is Producing Greater Than Expected Revenues. The Mid-Session Review projects tax receipts will rise 14 percent from last year – the largest such year-over-year increase in 25 years. Receipts are on pace to rise $87 billion more than expected last February; spending was $7 billion less than expected.

� The Projected Decline In The Deficit Includes Anticipated Costs. The new deficit forecasts take into account full extension of tax relief, war spending in 2005 and a substantial part of 2006, and the expected financing impact from creating voluntary personal retirement accounts under the President’s Social Security reform proposal.


Full text is here

QUOTE(page 15)
The current estimates of receipts for 2005 and 2006 exceed the February Budget estimates by $87 billion and $95 billion, respectively. The current estimates for 2007 through 2010 also exceed the February Budget estimates, resulting in receipts that are higher by $409 billion over the five years, 2006 through 2010. These changes are the net effect of revised economic assumptions, technical reestimates, enacted legislation, and revisions in the Administration’s proposals.

Revised economic assumptions and technical reestimates account for most of the revisions in receipts since February, increasing receipts by $87 billion in 2005, $95 billion in 2006, and $406 billion over the five-year period, 2006 through 2010. Higher-than-expected collections of individual and corporation income taxes account for most of the increase in receipts for 2005. These increases are in large part attributable to higher-than-expected individual and corporation income tax liability in tax years 2004 and 2005, as reflected in collection experience since February.
Fife and Drum
I still fail to see where tax receipt increases are due to the tax break and “trickle down”. Most of what I read states that if our economy is left alone it will grow from 2 – 3.5% a year regardless of economic policy through natural expansion.

Any way, here’s where I take issue. Let’s look at your forecasted tax receipts.

QUOTE(Amlord’s quote from the White House)
Revised economic assumptions and technical reestimates account for most of the revisions in receipts since February, increasing receipts by $87 billion in 2005, $95 billion in 2006, and $406 billion over the five-year period, 2006 through 2010

If we total up the increased tax receipts from this year through 2010 we get $588 billion. Since last October, we have paid a total of $335,528,344,667.72 in interest on our national debt. So in one year we’ve wiped out 57% of the projected tax receipt increase for the next six years with one year’s worth of interest.

I won’t go on a rant about where the $335.5 billion in interest could have gone, but we all need to understand the money we waste in interest. That interest expense alone far out paces any economic “bump” that can be attributed to the still unproven increase in “trickle down” revenues from the tax break.
Amlord
1.) Should Bush raise taxes for the New Orleans rebuilding?

2.) If not, where should the money come from?


We should keep the topic for debate in mind.

The question is whether or not we should raise taxes to get more money for Katrina relief.

My argument is that the lower tax level of today generates economic activity, which leads to more tax revenue.

The numbers (this year at least) bear that out, with 14% more taxes from an economy that is growing at around 3.5-4%.

The tax level now (federal) is around the average for the post-WW2 era. Under Clinton, it had reached an all-time high.

I posit that we must cut spending. We should have done this before, but even now we must pare down to get this money for Katrina. Raising taxes will harm economic growth, which will be counter-productive.
BoF
1.) Should Bush raise taxes for the New Orleans rebuilding?

Only on those who are making over a certain amount and the estate tax should remain in place.

2.) If not, where should the money come from?

I think the Bush Administration should be honest enough to declare Iraq a fiasco and find as graceful a way out as soon as possible. Otherwise our “experiment” with manufactured democracy will be an ongoing expense for the foreseeable future. At this point the Bush Administration is merely compounding interest—lives and money—on a mistake and perhasps a lie about WMD. As the saying goes, "charity begins at home."
Cube Jockey
QUOTE(Amlord @ Sep 19 2005, 01:07 PM)
I got my figures from the OMB
*


Ok, then what I have shown you is a perfect example of lying with numbers. The link I cited in my previous post comes from OMB data. It shows the current dollar figures which would appear to be increasing. However, the careful student knows this isn't accurate because it doesn't factor in inflation and to truely make a comparison between two or more years you have to base the dollar amounts on a reference year. In this case they have based it on 2000.

The figures clearly indicate the tax cuts have decreased revenues (boy that is a shocker) with 2004 being the exception. Even this doesn't prove that the tax cuts increased the receipts, we'd have to dive into employment numbers, etc. Furthermore they are basing this 14% number on expected receipts without knowing what they will actually receive. It is invalid to deal with expected or estimated receipts if you are trying to determine the effect of tax cuts, you deal with what you have as fact on the books, period. The government has no idea what is going to happen to receipts in 2005 and 2006, much less 2007 through 2009. I think the combination of Katrina and the higher prices of energy will certainly have an effect making those predictions invalid.

QUOTE(Amlord)
My argument is that the lower tax level of today generates economic activity, which leads to more tax revenue.

And you are wrong, that is why it is being brought up in this topic. If you insist on relying on a faulty assumption directly related to the questions at hand you can be called on it smile.gif

QUOTE(Amlord)
The question is whether or not we should raise taxes to get more money for Katrina relief.

That is certainly an option and indeed the first question for debate. However there are other alternatives. But, the general idea, I think, behind the questions is that we cannot continue to spend money we don't have. We are engaged in a voluntary war that has already cost $200B+ with no end in sight. Add in the fact that we are estimating, at the low end, that reconstruction could cost $200-$250B AND sprinkle in the fact that the Republican Congress seems to want to press forward with their tax cutting agenda (permanent tax cuts, estate tax) and you have a recipe for financial disaster.
Rancid Uncle
1.) Should Bush raise taxes for the New Orleans rebuilding? Probably, but it's not the time to raise taxes on the middle and lower classes who are already in trouble from rising gas prices. It would probably be more prudent to pull a Robin Hood and steal from the rich. In any case, it's definitely not time to get rid of the estate tax.

2.) If not, where should the money come from? I think it should probably come somewhat from tax increases, but the pre-Katrina budget was in a world of pain anyway so tax increases may not be enough. The government could definitely cut back in Iraq and pork barrel spending but there is one huge new expenditure looming, the $1.2 Trillion rape of the federal government by the Prescription Drug Industry. Hardly anyone likes the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit on either side so why not just get rid of it?
A left Handed person
1.) Should Bush raise taxes for the New Orleans rebuilding?

He has. Inflation is taxation, because it decreases the value of that which you already possess, and until the money printed trickles down, it remains in the hands of the government, and thus a portion of the private economys wealth, is temporarily siphoned into the government. Thing is, inflation doesn't just take money away from we the people, it also takes money away from other countrys (who hold large reserves of dollars, so that they can buy oil [which can only be bought with dollars]). Which on top of being somewhat immoral, may propagate the prospect that the Euro would make a better petro-currency then the dollar, and thus make the fall of the petro-dollar more probable. If the petro-dollar falls, our economy will crash, as investment will crumble, because gains made in the US economy will no longer pay back in oil exchangeble currency, and this will in turn cause the stock market to crash. Living standards will plummet, as our dollars value will radically decrease, and we'll have to build an export economy from scratch, as right now we don't really have one.

Besides which, people overestimate the value of a few percentage points worth of tax cuts. Yes to much government produces a stagnant economy, but we are nowhere near the line where that occurs, and to little government can destroy egalitarianism. Canada to the north of us, does perfectly fine, with taxes about twice as high as ours.
Amlord
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Oct 2 2005, 05:29 PM)
1.) Should Bush raise taxes for the New Orleans rebuilding?

He has.  Inflation is taxation, because it decreases the value of that which you already possess, and until the money printed trickles down, it remains in the hands of the government, and thus a portion of the private economys wealth, is temporarily siphoned into the government.  Thing is, inflation doesn't just take money away from we the people, it also takes money away from other countrys (who hold large reserves of dollars, so that they can buy oil [which can only be bought with dollars]).  Which on top of being somewhat immoral, may propagate the prospect that the Euro would make a better petro-currency then the dollar, and thus make the fall of the petro-dollar more probable.  If the petro-dollar falls, our economy will crash, as investment will crumble, because gains made in the US economy will no longer pay back in oil exchangeble currency, and this will in turn cause the stock market to crash.  Living standards will plummet, as our dollars value will radically decrease, and we'll have to build an export economy from scratch, as right now we don't really have one. 

Besides which, people overestimate the value of a few percentage points worth of tax cuts.  Yes to much government produces a stagnant economy, but we are nowhere near the line where that occurs, and to little government can destroy egalitarianism.  Canada to the north of us, does perfectly fine, with taxes about twice as high as ours.
*



I define taxes as a transfer of funds from the private sector to the public sector. How does inflation fit this definition. To my knowledge, inflation does not cause additional funds to be available to the government.

Then we have the rant about "petro dollars". This is completely off-topic.
A left Handed person
I define taxes as a transfer of funds from the private sector to the public sector. How does inflation fit this definition. To my knowledge, inflation does not cause additional funds to be available to the government.

Lets say we have an economy of 1000 dollars. The government prints 500 new dollars. The overall networth (as far as value is concerned) of the economy hasn't changed, but the government now holds one third of it. Its more of less the equivalent of the government taxing 333 dollars out of the economy.

Thus, inflation is an indirect method of taxation.

Then we have the rant about "petro dollars". This is completely off-topic.

Not so. Theres no way Bush is going to be able to cut enough out of the budget to pay for Katrina (because if he could, he would've done so already in order to pay for Iraq). Thus, he can only get the money needed, by borrowing or printing. Printing hurts the petro-dollar which is the only thing holding our economy together. If he were to pay for this via taxation, then he wouldn't have to resort to printing money, and consequently the negative side effects of printing money correlate to this threads question:

1.) Should Bush raise taxes for the New Orleans rebuilding?
Amlord
QUOTE(A left Handed person @ Oct 3 2005, 03:00 PM)
I define taxes as a transfer of funds from the private sector to the public sector. How does inflation fit this definition. To my knowledge, inflation does not cause additional funds to be available to the government.

Lets say we have an economy of 1000 dollars.  The government prints 500 new dollars.  The overall networth (as far as value is concerned) of the economy hasn't changed, but the government now holds one third of it.  Its more of less the equivalent of the government taxing 333 dollars out of the economy. 

Thus, inflation is an indirect method of taxation. 

Then we have the rant about "petro dollars". This is completely off-topic.

Not so.  Theres no way Bush is going to be able to cut enough out of the budget to pay for Katrina (because if he could, he would've done so already in order to pay for Iraq).  Thus, he can only get the money needed, by borrowing or printing.  Printing hurts the petro-dollar which is the only thing holding our economy together.  If he were to pay for this via taxation, then he wouldn't have to resort to printing money, and consequently the negative side effects of printing money correlate to this threads question:

1.) Should Bush raise taxes for the New Orleans rebuilding? 
*


Are you trying to say that you think the Fed will simply print money to spend for Katrina? Do you have any evidence to back this up? The US borrows the money it spends (in deficit) by issuing bonds. It doesn't just print money.

Your answer doesn't correlate with how things actually work. Other countries may simply print money to create liquidity. Fortunately, the US doesn't need to. We have a long line of people willing to lend money to the US government.
A left Handed person
Are you trying to say that you think the Fed will simply print money to spend for Katrina? Do you have any evidence to back this up? The US borrows the money it spends (in deficit) by issuing bonds. It doesn't just print money.

I said:
he can only get the money needed, by borrowing or printing.

He's likely to do a combination of both, as thats whats hes done in the past.

As far as economics go, even bonds are (in economic effect) taxation, as they take money out of the private sector, and put it into the hands of the government. Yes, they do eventually pay back more then they were bought for, but where does that money come from? Taxation, printing, and more borrowing. Yes its voluntary, and thus maybe doesn't violate your ideology as much as other forms of getting money do, but in pure economic effect, it is taxation.

We also loan money from other countrys such as China, and that doesn't immediately take money away from the people. However, what abut eventually paying back what you borrowed, and in the meantime paying interest? Taxation is required for both.

All money spent by the government, is taken from the private sector sooner or later, in one form or another. The government under the Republicans isn't really any smaller then it was under the democrats, its just funded by different forms of taxation.

Your answer doesn't correlate with how things actually work. Other countries may simply print money to create liquidity. Fortunately, the US doesn't need to. We have a long line of people willing to lend money to the US government.

Lended money has to be payed back, and it has be payed back with interest.

Also, other countries cant print money capable of buying oil. OPEC only sells for dollars, and thats why were so rich, because everyone needs our currency. Other countrys hold massive dollar reserves for buying oil. Japan for example, holds roughly 200 billion dollars. If we print money, that 200 billion dollars value drops.

I just realized half of this as I was writing this post so to get back to main question:

1.) Should Bush raise taxes for the New Orleans rebuilding?

Borrowing and loaning and printing money, eventually taxes the people harder then they would have been taxed, if the money was just directly taken from them, because borrowing and loaning and for some arbtirary reason, even printed money from the federal reserve bank (dont ask me why its privatized and wants interest...), requires interest to be payed on it.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.