[mike777]

Today there was a huge tax rebellion from young people/students.


Calif. was the epi center but I saw on the news it spread across the country. Wow!

I note countries in Europe, Greece for one, is also in a tax rebellion.


fwiw

In the usa about 50% of all of us pay zero income taxes.


About 10% of us pay 70% of all income taxes.

[jdonn]

Um, the protests were not about taxes, they were about cuts in education spending...

[mike777]

jdonn, on Mar 5 2010, 03:02 AM, said:

Um, the protests were not about taxes, they were about cuts in education spending...

no

[mike777]

1) any cuts less than 20 years ago....insane

2) any cuts less than 10 years ago ....insane



3)ANY CUTS LESS THAN YESTERSDAY......INSANE

-------------------------


ANY INCREASE .....IS A TAX .......

[Apollo81]

mike777, on Mar 5 2010, 03:17 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 5 2010, 03:02 AM, said:

Um, the protests were not about taxes, they were about cuts in education spending...

no

yes

[jdonn]

mike777, on Mar 5 2010, 03:17 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 5 2010, 03:02 AM, said:

Um, the protests were not about taxes, they were about cuts in education spending...

no

You can say you are right 10,210 more times if you want. You will still be wrong. I recommend you find a news website/program/paper and read it.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on Mar 5 2010, 03:17 AM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 5 2010, 03:02 AM, said:

Um, the protests were not about taxes, they were about cuts in education spending...

no

When you have to make stuff up to buttress your views, perhaps it's time to reexamine your views.

College students speak out against education cuts

Quote

Students staged raucous rallies on college campuses in California and around the country Thursday in protests against deep education cuts.

Dozens of campuses were hit with marches, strikes, teach-ins and walkouts in what was billed as the March 4th National Day of Action for Public Education. Organizers said hundreds of thousands of students, teachers and parents were expected to participate in the demonstrations.

UCSC reopens Friday after protests

Quote

SANTA CRUZ -- UC Santa Cruz reopened this morning and traffic is flowing into both campus entrances.

Students protesting cuts to education funding brought business at the campus to a halt Thursday, but traffic is moving and Metro buses and the campus shuttles are operating on their regular schedules and routes, according to UCSC.

No one wants tax money wasted, but our taxes do pay for many things important to the future of our country. Education is high on that list.

The students want taxpayers to invest in higher education, and they are right.

[Lobowolf]

The CSU system has been hammered pretty hard. They lost about half a billion dollars in funding this year (though they got back almost 100 million in one-time federal stimulus money), and at the same time, applications for both transfer students and incoming freshmen are way up.

[kenberg]

Out here the students save their rioting for truly important matters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0030405060.html

It's a little hard to imagine students rioting over income taxes. Don't you, like, have to have an income before this is important to you?

[PassedOut]

I've paid quite a lot in taxes over the years, much of it for stuff I didn't approve of. The idea of tax cuts is very appealing to me as it is to many others. But the people who consider tax cuts to be the solution to every problem are irresponsible fools.

Tax collections need to match up roughly with governmental expenditures. In tough economic times, the federal budget should run a deficit, which in normal times should be paid off. There was a broad bipartisan consensus on this until the presidencies of Reagan and the two Bushes, where the irrational belief in "voodoo economics" led to the policy of financing economic growth -- not just economic recovery -- through deficit spending.

In principle, tax cuts should follow the corresponding spending cuts, not lead them. If spending cuts are not politically palatable, the taxes to pay for them must remain in place. Temporary cuts can be justified during recessions, but must be restored afterwards.

And I include in that restoration the taxes to fund programs that I do not like as well as ones I approve of. If I lack the ability to convince lawmakers to eliminate the programs I consider waste, I have no right to charge those programs to future taxpayers. Nor does anyone else.

Republicans often talk about fiscal responsibility, but for 30 years they have demonstrated none. Bill Clinton insisted on restoring fiscal responsibility even though the republicans insisted that would throw the country into a depression (you can look it up), and no republican voted then for fiscal responsibility.

Clinton left the second Bush with a fiscal situation so sound that only an administration of complete morons could screw it up. It took them six months. They used reconciliation to cram fiscal irresponsibility down our throats.

Now we have another president who takes fiscal responsibility seriously, and his health care reforms are vital to cleaning up the mess created under Bush the second. True to form, the republicans are again 100% against fiscal responsibility, taking aim at this president just as they did at Bill Clinton.

It's sad to see so many suckers fall for that nonsense again.

[vuroth]

Wait, democratic-style governments everywhere in the world were fiscally responsible UNTIL Reagan? And this is a BIPARTISAN point of view?

God, I'd hate to see a partisan point of view....

[PassedOut]

vuroth, on Mar 5 2010, 01:04 PM, said:

Wait, democratic-style governments everywhere in the world were fiscally responsible UNTIL Reagan?  And this is a BIPARTISAN point of view?

God, I'd hate to see a partisan point of view....

Talking only about the US.

Before Reagan, republicans too were fiscally responsible. After WWII, every US administration -- democrat and republican -- cut the national debt as a percentage of GDP from Truman through Carter. Reagan and the first Bush then used what Bush himself called "voodoo economics" to push the national debt through the roof once again. These are simply facts.

That fiasco was cleaned up under Clinton, but went to hell when the voodoo economics people took over again with Bush the second. And the voodoo economics people are now fighting Obama tooth and nail as he tries to clean up the latest Bush mess.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

Now we have another president who takes fiscal responsibility seriously, and his health care reforms are vital to cleaning up the mess created under Bush the second.

you'll have to explain this to me

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Mar 5 2010, 01:17 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

Now we have another president who takes fiscal responsibility seriously, and his health care reforms are vital to cleaning up the mess created under Bush the second.

you'll have to explain this to me

Without health care reform, the deficit created under the fiscally irresponsible Bush (the second) administration cannot be brought back under control.

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2010, 01:00 PM, said:

I've paid quite a lot in taxes over the years, much of it for stuff I didn't approve of. The idea of tax cuts is very appealing to me as it is to many others. But the people who consider tax cuts to be the solution to every problem are irresponsible fools.

Tax collections need to match up roughly with governmental expenditures. In tough economic times, the federal budget should run a deficit, which in normal times should be paid off. There was a broad bipartisan consensus on this until the presidencies of Reagan and the two Bushes, where the irrational belief in "voodoo economics" led to the policy of financing economic growth -- not just economic recovery -- through deficit spending.

In principle, tax cuts should follow the corresponding spending cuts, not lead them. If spending cuts are not politically palatable, the taxes to pay for them must remain in place. Temporary cuts can be justified during recessions, but must be restored afterwards.

And I include in that restoration the taxes to fund programs that I do not like as well as ones I approve of. If I lack the ability to convince lawmakers to eliminate the programs I consider waste, I have no right to charge those programs to future taxpayers. Nor does anyone else.

Republicans often talk about fiscal responsibility, but for 30 years they have demonstrated none. Bill Clinton insisted on restoring fiscal responsibility even though the republicans insisted that would throw the country into a depression (you can look it up), and no republican voted then for fiscal responsibility.

Clinton left the second Bush with a fiscal situation so sound that only an administration of complete morons could screw it up. It took them six months.

Now we have another president who takes fiscal responsibility seriously, and his health care reforms are vital to cleaning up the mess created under Bush the second. True to form, the republicans are again 100% against fiscal responsibility, taking aim at this president just as they did at Bill Clinton.

It's sad to see so many suckers fall for that nonsense again.

While Reagan took not much time to double the entire national debt, it was still around a trillion dollars when he got to office. The consensus has awlays been broad in theory and narrow in practice. You don't get to owing a trillion dollars with a commitment to paying off your debt.

Clinton's timing (and I voted for him twice) was stellar with respect to the dot com boom and bust - he got in just before people started making a boatload of money (and paying a good chunk of it to the government), and he got out just before some of their companies lost 90% of their market cap. I think that generally (though not exclusively) presidents get more credit than they deserve when things go well, and more blame than they deserve when things go badly. I don't think his economic reputation would have been quite so stellar presiding over a post-market crash and post 9-11 economy. Would've been nice to see him try, though, particularly as it probably couldn't have been much worse.

IMO, it remains to be seen whether Obama takes fiscal responsibility seriously. As you say, that involves paying down some bills when things are good, and he hasn't had that good economy yet. You may be right, and it'd be great; OTOH, we may just see more $ = more spending.

Part of the problem is that much of the spending that gets done during good economic times is by its nature ongoing - people get hired, which is an annual expense; or capital projects get started, and they take a long time to complete and require subsequent funding commitments or abandonment, which would waste the earlier spending. If you get an unexpected $50,000 bonus this year and buy a car with it, that's great - next year, you just need to buy gas and pay for maintenance. If you get an unexpected $50,000 bonus this year and hire a chauffeur, you've got a potential problem next year.

In California, since our semi-recent flush period in the 90's, over the following decade, we had significant population growth, and revenue growth that outpaced that growth, but spending that outpaced the revenue growth. We could have increased spending with population and inflation adjustments and still had extra money to PAD the surplus; instead, we (as a public entity) lived up to and beyond our means. When revenue growth outpaces population growth and inflation, and you go from great fiscal shape to poor fiscal shape, that's primiarly an expenditure problem, not a revenue problem. California taxes, by and large, are the highest in the country, and we're still hurting. That's not to suggest that California is a microcosm for the country; obviously, both sides of the equation are constantly in play, and things differ between different states, as well as between state, federal, and local entities.

In addition to cutting university funding, California is making a number of other cuts, including public safety (e.g. early prisoner release). And the recent tax increases make it about the most heavily taxed state in the country (sales, property, & income). Ultimately, it's the usual question - spend less, spend differently, or bring in more.

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2010, 01:12 PM, said:

Before Reagan, republicans too were fiscally responsible. After WWII, every US administration -- democrat and republican -- cut the national debt as a percentage of GDP from Truman through Carter.

To me, fiscal responsibility implies cutting it or controlling it as an actual figure, not just as a percentage of GDP. With GDP on the rise throughout the 70's, the national debt shouldn't have more than doubled.

If I double my salary, I don't think I'm being responsible by increasing my debt, as long as I don't double it.

[hrothgar]

Lobowolf, on Mar 5 2010, 09:40 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2010, 01:12 PM, said:

Before Reagan, republicans too were fiscally responsible. After WWII, every US administration -- democrat and republican -- cut the national debt as a percentage of GDP from Truman through Carter.

To me, fiscal responsibility implies cutting it or controlling it as an actual figure, not just as a percentage of GDP. With GDP on the rise throughout the 70's, the national debt shouldn't have more than doubled.

If I double my salary, I don't think I'm being responsible by increasing my debt, as long as I don't double it.

Hypothethical example

In the year 2000, I was luck enough to be making $125K a year.
I went out and purchased a house that cost $500K, with a $400K mortgage.

By 2010, my salary had increased to $250K a year.
I purchased a more expensive house (this one cost $750K with a $600K mortgage)

I assume that you would argue that the second purchase is much less fiscally responsible than the first, since the absolute size of the debt has increased by 50%.

[PassedOut]

Lobowolf, on Mar 5 2010, 01:40 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2010, 01:12 PM, said:

Before Reagan, republicans too were fiscally responsible. After WWII, every US administration -- democrat and republican -- cut the national debt as a percentage of GDP from Truman through Carter.

To me, fiscal responsibility implies cutting it or controlling it as an actual figure, not just as a percentage of GDP. With GDP on the rise throughout the 70's, the national debt shouldn't have more than doubled.

If I double my salary, I don't think I'm being responsible by increasing my debt, as long as I don't double it.

I would certainly have preferred the WWII debt be eliminated completely, but that debt was huge and (in my opinion) unavoidable. Under the circumstances, I do consider it to have been responsible to chop away at it (as a percentage of the GDP) administration after administration, all the while handling the problems of the day. And I hold that view even though I did not approve of all the spending decisions that were made during those years (to say the least).

[Lobowolf]

hrothgar, on Mar 5 2010, 01:51 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 5 2010, 09:40 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2010, 01:12 PM, said:

Before Reagan, republicans too were fiscally responsible. After WWII, every US administration -- democrat and republican -- cut the national debt as a percentage of GDP from Truman through Carter.

To me, fiscal responsibility implies cutting it or controlling it as an actual figure, not just as a percentage of GDP. With GDP on the rise throughout the 70's, the national debt shouldn't have more than doubled.

If I double my salary, I don't think I'm being responsible by increasing my debt, as long as I don't double it.

Hypothethical example

In the year 2000, I was luck enough to be making $125K a year.
I went out and purchased a house that cost $500K, with a $400K mortgage.

By 2010, my salary had increased to $250 a year.
I purchased a more expensive house (this one cost $750K with a $600K mortgage)

I assume that you would argue that the second purchase is much less fiscally responsible than the first, since the absolute size of the debt has increased by 50%.

No, that's a good counterexample. If most government spending were as practical as appreciable assets with built-in means to avoid liability (i.e. mortgage deduction), the effect of constant deficit spending would be mitigated. There's also a difference between big purchases a decade apart and constantly spending more than you make, year after year. All sorts of things require big upfront costs to realize long-term benefits, maybe most notably things like infrastructure. By and large, though, it's not responsible to constantly spend more than you make.

We're at what, $12.5 trillion? I tend to think that's a number that should get smaller, not just get bigger more slowly as compared to GDP. But if you think that shrinking the debt as an actual number is not particuarly important, I'll defer to you on that issue; I'm not an economist.

I do have experience in areas that strongly suggest to me that it could be done if it were deemed important. This is, of course, another area that is just about inextricable from questions of political capital. You get more of it by spending now than you lose by paying later.

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2010, 02:07 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Mar 5 2010, 01:40 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Mar 5 2010, 01:12 PM, said:

Before Reagan, republicans too were fiscally responsible. After WWII, every US administration -- democrat and republican -- cut the national debt as a percentage of GDP from Truman through Carter.

To me, fiscal responsibility implies cutting it or controlling it as an actual figure, not just as a percentage of GDP. With GDP on the rise throughout the 70's, the national debt shouldn't have more than doubled.

If I double my salary, I don't think I'm being responsible by increasing my debt, as long as I don't double it.

I would certainly have preferred the WWII debt be eliminated completely, but that debt was huge and (in my opinion) unavoidable. Under the circumstances, I do consider it to have been responsible to chop away at it (as a percentage of the GDP) administration after administration, all the while handling the problems of the day. And I hold that view even though I did not approve of all the spending decisions that were made during those years (to say the least).

I largely agree with you here; I do think, though, that the presidents of, say, the 70's could and should have done better than increase the debt by "only" 140% or so.

The percentage reduction as compared to GDP is better than the alternative, and it's better than transpired in the 80's, granted.


I think it's disappointing that Lloyd Bentsen was remembered for "You're no Jack Kennedy." His truly great line in those debates with Quayle was, "I could create the illusion of prosperity too, if I could write 200 billion dollars' worth of hot checks every year." (or whatever the exact quote was)