Center for American Progress - The Bush Tax Increase

[Joe DeFuria]

And people call Americans "Flag Wavers".

 

[pax]

Oh its not flag waving in the traditional sense. Theres more to it than just health care... lax enviro rules enforcement... easy access to energy and ressources... Im not proud of the fact we might become a #1 dumping ground for any kind of biz no matter how noxious or abusive...

I am sorta flag waving about health care tho... The costs savings of national health care when done right are enormous.

 

[Natoma]

I think this should boil down to what state spending is to be considered pork and if that pork (if it can be agreed upon as such) can be reduced to the amount fed spending was cut.

In Canada we have near same debates tho the fed is expected to share expenses as they also share jurisdiction.

The only problem pax, is that "pork" to one state is "necessity" to another. Here in NY, I look at corn-based ethanol subsidies as a waste of money. But try telling that to a corn farmer in Nebraska. Or tobacco subsidies for farmers in South Carolina.

Is that what you're referring to?

Oh ya Im sure there are pork programs but some are far from pork. But in neo con thinking any tax thats seen as income redistribution is pork. No matter how basic the assistance a given program is. Im just saying the argument boils down to what portion of state spending can be called pork. But if that amount of spending is actually pork in the case of recent fed state subsidies transfers is whats not dealt with.

Joe seems to have a legal argument that seems pretty strong tho it wouldnt hold up north here. But definitely much state spending is essential to the welfare of the community in those states. So you tend to hold the moral side of the argument much better I think...

Technically I'm not arguing one way or another for or against state spending. I'm just saying this is a way in which some states could argue for or against their funding. Personally I think there is a lot of wasteful state spending. The only problem is, how exactly does one define "waste" on a national level that everyone could agree on and effectively legislate.

That's the $10 Trillion question.

I don't know about canada, but that utopian vision of a legislature freely giving up their pet pork pprojects just doesn't sound like something my congress would do.

 

[Natoma]

Joe seems to have a legal argument that seems pretty strong tho it wouldnt hold up north here. But definitely much state spending is essential to the welfare of the community in those states. So you tend to hold the moral side of the argument much better I think...

More accurately....conservatives think about stuff....liberals "feel" about it.

Nice way to lay down the blanket there.

Someone must not be following the gay marriage stuff from the con-side.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Any time you want to back your "Bush Tax Hike" assertion with actual data, I'll be waiting.

 

[Natoma]

I did. You just don't accept it as "valid." There comes a point where the round robin must end. I just don't happen to have the strength to continue this for 30 pages anymore like the olden days of antiquity. Must be getting old I suppose.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

As I said, your "forumula" is mathematically flawed from the onset. In other words:

If I get a 10% decrease in my salary, and my phone bill goes UP by 5% at the same time, this doesn't mean I have a 15% budget shortfall. (10+5 != 15). You did not look at some consistent basis like the "percentage of GDP", and you did not use absloute numbers.

Second, even using your flawed forumula, you did not use the correct data. You used budget projections through Oct 1, 2004, but only used Debt info as of "today" (Feb, 2004).

Of course I don't accept it as "valid." It couldn't be further from it.

 

[Natoma]

And I explained that before. Who cares what the "phone bill" is. It's total outlays that matter, not the "phone bill" subset. You keep pushing this point and it's completely incorrect. As I said before, the debt is the accumulation of Widgets A, B, and C. Who cares what A or B or C are individually. All that matters is the total outlay, which in your case would be your phone bill, electric bill, gas bill, etc.

And, I granted you on the data part, therefore I used the complete 2003 numbers, which is definitely the correct data. And what happened? The gap increased from 13% to 16%. So yea, you go rolling your eyes all you like Joe, get your last word in, and drive through.

 

[jandar]

My taxes are lower.

I dont pay state income tax. My sales tax is 7%.


tough life, I am bringing home more money now than before....

If local/state governments are done right, things can be fine. Jacksonville raised over 2 BILLION dollars for road work by issuing a 1/2% percent sales tax increase to pay for new roads, arena, ballpark, libraries, etc...

The State Government is funding more roads being built here. All of this without FEDERAL help.


This nation is a Republic. Each state has its own rights and bills to pay. Floridians shouldnt have to pay for people from West Virginia to live because mining operations have shut down.

 

[Natoma]

How can you not pay state income tax? How does that work exactly? I want to know for my own self.

Oh and btw, I agree with you on the states part. But as I told pax, try convincing our glorious congressional leaders to give up their home pet pork. See how far you get.

 

[Silent_One]

The State Government is funding more roads being built here. All of this without FEDERAL help.

Sorry. Not so. Fed's help alot. In fact Florida gets about $800 million per year in Federal funds for transportation needs (highways, bridges, interstate maintenance, ect...)

 

[Stvn]

The State Government is funding more roads being built here. All of this without FEDERAL help.

Sorry. Not so. Fed's help alot. In fact Florida gets about $800 million per year in Federal funds

Agreed, as do all states. It's just not true that states are these completely autonomous principalities, nor could they ever be in this day and age.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

And I explained that before. Who cares what the "phone bill" is. It's total outlays that matter...

Natoma, YOU ARE NOT HEARING ME.

Your MATH IS NOT RIGHT. The point I'm pushing I only RECENTLY brought up, and it's NOT THE SAME as thing you are ranting on now...do you really want me to spell it out for you further?

Or do you just want to grab some absolute numbers like I asked.

And, I granted you on the data part, therefore I used the complete 2003 numbers, which is definitely the correct data.

Oh, so NOW you are back-tracking on using bush's "full term" and just using 2003 instead? Har-de-har.

Again, it's irrelecvant because your BASIC MATH IS NOT RIGHT.

Sigh:

National Debt increases 22%.
Spending increases 26%
Fed tax receipts decline 12%.

WHERE DOES your 16% GAP NUMBER COME FROM? It's erroneously arrived at using INVALID MATH. Need an illustration? Let's use some absolute numbers (I'll just make them up) to illustrate you can't just ADD AND SUBTRACT PERCENTAGES THAT AREN'T OF THE SAME BASIS,

National Debt: Rises from 5.7 to 7 Trillion (22% increase)
Spending: Increases from $1000 to $1260 (That's right, one thousand dollars) A 26% INCREASE
Fed tax receipts decline: $800 to $714 (12% decrease)

Get the point Natoma? There is actually about a full 7-5.7 = 1.3 trillion (22%) increase in the debt that is whollly UNACCOUNTED FOR.

Using Natoma's New MATH though, you would magically figure that the debt is actually some 16% (26%+12%-22%) higher than it "should be".

It doesn't take a mathemetician to figure this out, Natoma.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

How can you not pay state income tax? How does that work exactly? I want to know for my own self.

It works by not having a state that charges income tax. They do exist you know. In fact, NOT having an income tax used to be the norm around here. (And in your case a State AND a city).

God I wish people would have to write a check to the various governments every time they got paid, instead of it being withheld automatically...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Agreed, as do all states. It's just not true that states are these completely autonomous principalities, nor could they ever be in this day and age.

This doesn't mean that states shouldn't be MORE autonomous than they are today.

 

[Natoma]

And I explained that before. Who cares what the "phone bill" is. It's total outlays that matter...

Natoma, YOU ARE NOT HEARING ME.

Your MATH IS NOT RIGHT. The point I'm pushing I only RECENTLY brought up, and it's NOT THE SAME as thing you are ranting on now...do you really want me to spell it out for you further?

Or do you just want to grab some absolute numbers like I asked.

I gave you the absolute numbers middle of last page. Drive through.

And, I granted you on the data part, therefore I used the complete 2003 numbers, which is definitely the correct data.

Oh, so NOW you are back-tracking on using bush's "full term" and just using 2003 instead? Har-de-har.

Uhm, no. 2001-2003 numbers. Not 2003 alone.

Again, your BASIC MATH IS NOT RIGHT.

Sigh:

National Debt increases 22%.
Spending increases 26%
Fed tax receipts decline 12%.

WHERE DOES your 16% GAP NUMBER COME FROM? It's erroneously arrived at using INVALID MATH. Need an illustration? Let's use some absolute numbers (I'll just make them up) to illustrate you can't just ADD AND SUBTRACT PERCENTAGES THAT AREN'T OF THE SAME BASIS,

National Debt: Rises from 5.7 to 7 Trillion (22% increase)
Spending: Increases from $1000 to $1260 (That's right, one thousand dollars) A 26% INCREASE
Fed tax receipts decline: $800 to $727 (10% decrease)

Get the point Natoma? There is actually about a full 7-5.7 = 1.3 trillion (22%) increase in the debt that is whollly UNACCOUNTED FOR.

Using Natoma's New MATH though, you would magically figure that the debt is actually some 16% (26%+10%-22%) higher than it "should be".

It doesn't take a mathemetician to figure this out, Natoma.

Joe, it is coming from the same money. The National Debt and congressional spending are tied into ONE source, i.e. tax receipts.

Of course using your flawed example where you're taking debt increasing by $1.3 Trillion and comparing it percentage wise with an income going from $1000 to $1260 and tax receipts declining from $800 to $727 is wrong.

But who's talking about that hmm? The example I gave to normalize it down to low numbers was this.

Base Income: $100
Decrease Income to $88 and put spending to $128
What is the debt differential?

But yea, you continue ranting and ranting all you like, and using numbers that have absolutely nothing to do with one another. If the debt increased $1.5 Trillion, that is a direct result of not only the decreased tax intake, but the increased spending. Want to try getting your last word in some other way? Jeez.

 

[Stvn]

Agreed, as do all states. It's just not true that states are these completely autonomous principalities, nor could they ever be in this day and age.

This doesn't mean that states shouldn't be MORE autonomous than they are today.

wasn't making a good or bad judgement. just stating the current facts.

 

[Stvn]

Natoma,

Joe is right. In your original example, you didn't provide the correct data. I thought you were using the numbers through the 2003 budget year, not numbers that were partly through 2004, and some others to the end of 2004.

However Joe, Natoma's revised numbers using the 2001 through 2003 data are correct. They are coming from the same source and therefor match up properly.

Either way, I don't really care. In short, Natoma you were wrong before, but you corrected your numbers as Joe pointed out. I'm surprised you even went that far. I know how much you hate to be wrong. just kiddin.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe, it is coming from the same money. The National Debt and congressional spending are tied into ONE source, i.e. tax receipts.

Natoma...this is irrelevant.

NATIONAL DEBT IS AN ACCUMULATION OVER TIME. THE BUDGET IS AN ANNUAL NUMBER. A % INCREASE IN THE NATIONAL DEBT DOES NOT REFLECT THE SAME % CHANGE IN THE DEFICIT. IT'S NOT ADDITIVE.

Somebody please help Natoma....he's more mathematically challenged than I am, and that's not saying a whole helluva lot.

But yea, you continue ranting and ranting all you like, and using numbers that have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

That's PRECISELY because your MATH is NOT CONSISTENT.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Either way, I don't really care. In short, Natoma you were wrong before, but you corrected your numbers as Joe pointed out. I'm surprised you even went that far. I know how much you hate to be wrong. just kiddin.

Yeah, when Natoma gets backed into a corner, that's ususally when he asks for his friends come and lend a hand.