Debateful

Robin Hood lives! Egads.....

AP via SFGate.com Wrote:Source: Link

Democrats in both House and Senate pressed ahead with budget plans that would saddle millions of Americans with higher tax bills in three years by allowing some or all of President Bush's reductions to die after he leaves office.

All three major presidential candidates interrupted their campaigns to cast votes on the budget plan, which is nonbinding but highlights the difficult choices on taxes and spending facing the next president and Congress. Binding votes on the expiring Bush tax cuts will be left to his successor and the Congress that's elected in November.

The candidates also wanted a chance to vote for a one-year ban on pork-barrel projects, though that late-night Senate effort seemed doomed to defeat. The practice of inserting "earmarked" spending into legislation is seen as a birthright by lawmakers in both parties — and a right under the power of the purse awarded to Congress by the Founding Fathers.

As for the $3 trillion federal budget plans, the House version would provide generous increases to domestic programs but bring the government's ledger back into the black by letting all of Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 as scheduled. That five-year plan passed the House on a 212-207 vote, with Republicans unanimously opposing it over what they argued was $683 billion in tax increases.

In the Senate, John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, voted to extend the full roster of tax cuts, which he opposed seven years ago as being tilted in favor of the wealthy. Democratic rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois both voted against them.

Clinton and Obama did vote for $340 billion in tax cuts over five years for middle- and higher-income taxpayers, investors and people inheriting businesses and big estates.

But they joined with Democrats and a couple of maverick Republicans in rejecting, 52-47, an additional $376 billion in extensions of income tax rate cuts, more generous estate tax cuts and relief from the alternative minimum tax.

Republicans hope to use the votes as fodder for the heated presidential campaign and for congressional races. Lawmakers in both parties also were put on record for when the tax cuts actually expire in three years.

Said Republican Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, "Democrats are quietly but very assuredly paving the way for a massive, economy-choking, tax increase."

Democrats said the plans would reverse years of deficits that have piled up during Bush's tenure. They said he squandered trillions of dollars in projected surpluses that were projected when he took office.

"The Democratic budget continues to move our nation in a new direction and to clean up the fiscal train wreck caused by failed Republican economic policies over the last seven years," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Separately, the proposed moratorium on pet spending projects seemed headed for defeat despite the backing of all three of Bush's potential successors.

Earmarks have exploded in number and cost in recent years, accompanied by charges of abuse and public outrage over egregious examples like the proposed "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, which would have cost more than $200 million to serve an island with a population of about 50.

"Too many senators have confused the founding fathers of the earmark favor factory with the Founding Fathers of the United States of America," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

On the subject of tax cuts, Democrats in the House defeated a GOP plan that would have extended Bush's reductions — and went further by eliminating the alternative minimum tax, which was originally designed years ago to make sure rich people pay at least some tax but now threatens more than 20 million additional taxpayers with increases averaging $2,000.

Some 38 mostly moderate Republicans voted against their party's plan, which would have made cuts in popular programs like Medicare, housing, community development and the Medicaid health care program.

Congress' annual budget debate involves a nonbinding resolution that sets the stage for later bills affecting taxes, benefit programs such as Medicare, and the annual appropriations bills. Unless such follow-up legislation is passed, however, the budget debate has little real effect and is mostly about making statements about party priorities.

This is such a year. Congress rarely tackles difficult budget issues as elections loom, and a standoff with Bush means that Democrats may even take a pass on advancing the 12 annual appropriations bills.

The first year of an administration is typically when heavy lifting on the budget is done, but all the candidates' campaign plans seem to promise more than they can deliver. McCain's tax cuts would require applying a meat cleaver to spending, while the Democrats promise spending that would enlarge the deficit or require too-large tax increases.

The White House forecasts the deficit for the current year at $410 billion, a near record.

Democrats trumpeted their plan for putting the budget back in balance while also making investments in infrastructure, education, community development, clean energy and other programs. It also would avoid $196 billion worth of Bush-proposed cuts to Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled.

The gate attacks again. The article appears to be rather mixed in it's presentation.

We have to tax to pay off our debts so they aren't owned by the Chinese.

debateman Wrote:We have to tax to pay off our debts so they aren't owned by the Chinese.

WHAT???
Please explain this little jewel.

I expect you are refering to raising Govt revenue and strengthening our economic out put.
Taxing out industry and other producers to "pay off" China will only worsen the situation.
High taxes and regulation is a big reason we are in a trade deficit to begin with.
How about freeing up business so they will stay here and we can better compete in the world market?
This is akin to going to a Check-cashing joint to make ends meet.
Stupid

preserva Wrote:

debateman Wrote:We have to tax to pay off our debts so they aren't owned by the Chinese.

WHAT???
Please explain this little jewel.

I expect you are refering to raising Govt revenue and strengthening our economic out put.
Taxing out industry and other producers to "pay off" China will only worsen the situation.
High taxes and regulation is a big reason we are in a trade deficit to begin with.
How about freeing up business so they will stay here and we can better compete in the world market?
This is akin to going to a Check-cashing joint to make ends meet.
Stupid

Business cannot have a free ride when they are acting irresponsibly. Regulation is required to protect the American economy. We should value our goods with costs of transportation figured in, not just gas and such, but wear on our infrastructure. Failure to invest in our infrastructure will damage business more than taxes.

In addition, it is a national security risk to borrow from China to pay our debts, a practice we have been pursuing. We should avoid borrowing from China and ensure that each budget we pass is a balanced budget. I am for a balanced budget amendment. I am for a budget surplus that pays down the debt until the debt is paid off. From that point forward I am for eliminating deficit spending with the exception of national emergencies.

When we need money it is always tempting to boorow. If the money could be borrowed from China to give to the banks what good would come of it? The banks do not buy stock, people buy stock. If the money was given to people to buy stock then they might not, or, buying the stock and giving to the people might see them cash in aswell. There is no safe way to rectify the situation without money, and the stock needs to go to investors, and they need to keep them so that the business can grow and then the stock rises in value, more imaginary money can be borrowed and invested and so forth.

Raising taxes is a good way to raise money, but that will still give the money to the state and not the people, and if it isn't the people getting the stock then it is futile. The only way out is for people to want the stock, and at the presnet rate less and less stock is wanted as we go along.

So how do you make people want the stock? People need faith in something they want, so making the stock worth what they are paying for it is one way to do so, but as soon as it gets to be worth more than what they think it is they sell it again, right? This flip flop is destroying the world's economy as more and more people would rather have money than stock, so, how do we get the stock into the possession of the people and keep it there? If nobody wants to own the business the business collapses, right? The only people that would want the stock are the owners of the companies, so making them buy the stock is the ideal solution. When you have people not interested in the prosperity of the business buying or selling stock they are doing it as an investment to make money, and as long as they stay owners of the stock the company thrives.

So how does the government get the stock back to the owners? What would the owners do if they bought the stock? They could sell the business if they wanted and then the new owners would divide the business into stock again, and so forth. The only way to keep the stock of the for sale list is to buy it up and keep it, something the government is thinking of doing. The best thing then is for the governments to own the business, but if they own the business growth slows down and the markets don't do as well. So then should the governments lend the money to the owners to buy their own stock and not let them sell their shares? That sounds like an economic meltdown to me, but then they could always buy the stock, give it to the owners, and close trading for those companies, making them from 'buyable businesses' into private enterprises that cannot be 'traded' with at that level. Or they could simply buy the business and make it a state owned business that they control from now on.

This whole wall street thing is too dangerous when fiath is lost. Sure it is fair game while interest is high, but if it gets to the point it is today then they need to do something fast. The stock must get bought and kept, and the only way to do that is to stop it from being sold, and the only fair way to do that is to buy the companies and give it to the owners and not let them trade stock. Maybe barring them from wall street for a while will see them lose money, but much less than they would have done if they were participating.

So raising taxes and doing that would solve the problem, as then they can earn back what they lost, but very slowly. That is the only rational solution to the problem, close trading completely. The major disadvantage would only be the lack of growth, and that can be eaighed against having a failing market.

Each time this happens the markets should be closed down until people demand stock, then it could be sold to them, and as soon as they sell it again it could go back to the government when times get tough again and then they could close down the markets until fiath is restored, and then trading can continue normally. If the markets are closed you will have a whole lot of middlemen that own stock, and they will be willing to part with it at a modest price to see the markets reopen and then they can begin making money again, and even they don't want the shares!

If they closed wall street the current owners of the shares would become the owners of the businesses and nobody would suffer. If they then raised the tax rate inflation would hit and the shares would become worth more and more while in the posession of the brokers or sharholders, and then they could reopen the markets when the time is right to tarde with faith again. The current holders would make money and the businesses, although not growing, could recover from the loss of faith in them and then they would be more valuable when the stocks became available again and then people would buy these cheap shares. This would be like putting the market on pause with everything growing around it, and when there is a scacity of something it goes up in value. No new businesses would be able to trade, and there would be growing stability without faith, so when they reopened their trading they would be more valuable.

With the money from the past owners of stock in circulation more tax could be collected so there would be no loss for the state, and then these players, seeing there is no market to exploit, and wanting to see their money grow beyond the banks means, would start their own businesses that cannot trade. This will start competition, create jobs, and breed stability. As soon as they see the market will not improve for them anymore, with the money they had they would invest it in their own means for their own finacial benefit, seeing as how there is more point in waiting for the right time. The time would be then and they would do many great things for their countries that would ensure their monay grows too. This in turn would create more oppurtunities to tax in house 'trading', and everyone would benefit, sooner rather than later. The businesses they start could open new initiative for the other business's to become in demand again, and the whole scenario could right itself without the lending of the bail out amount. This would breed competition and that stimulates growth, so the markets will grow without people buying into them, and there will be no crisis.

The money that was lying in a bank would be used to finance their enterprises without imaginary maoney floating around, and, while less of an amount, would still be growth. Beats a government owned scenario all the way. Someone owns the shares, and if they are left dormant for long enough, they will become valuable again as people see the various companies thrive. When the doors reopen stock owners will be able to do away with their business altogether if bad, or reap a profit if good.