December 4, 200421 yr Author balancing doesn't mean saving. 626139[/snapback] I love these clever one-liners. The fact is you cut spending so that the budget balances. And when theres less things to pay for you also cut the taxes. Thats like saying John pays 1000 a month on mortgage in addition to all his other bills and makes 5000 a month at his job. John finally pays off his house so now every month he pays 1000 dollars less in bills than he used to. Since he is spending less he keeps a 1000 dollars more a month than he did previously. Cutting spending without cutting taxes is like all of a sudden even though john payed off the entire mortgage he still needs to pay 1000 dollars to the mortgage comapny anyway. When theres less to pay for theres no need for taxes to be where they are at so thats when you cut them 626153[/snapback] But lets say John's daughter gets a bunch of credits cards in college and John now has to pay those off too..should John just not pay them from his salary and say I should be able to keep my money and my daughter should be able to rack up as much debt as she wants or should John pay his bills? 626180[/snapback] I think johns daughter should pay her bills. The problem is in your analogy tax money for social spending is like a bill that we have to pay, and my argument is it should not be. If this is reversed we can say John is govt and the daughter is an average citizen. John should not have to pay for his daughters fiscal irresponsibilty. 626782[/snapback] Actually my daughter analogy has more to do with the current spending which is primarily caused by the military increases, not social spending. Lets say for this hypo it has nothing to do with fiscal irresponsibility but more to do with a supposed necessity. Lets change it like this: John's wife has just been robbed at the store and some guy followed his daughter home during her Xmas break. John, whether he needs to or not, at the behest of his family, goes out and purchases a complex security system from Brinks..the best they have. He also purchases a super camera to be aimed at his neighbors yard because his neigbor has a criminal history but had nothing to do with the above incedents(yes Iraq). Now this super camera and security system were both purchased on credit from Super Security store. Now does John have to pay these bills or say screw it, I dont want my money going to pay these bills?
December 4, 200421 yr balancing doesn't mean saving. 626139[/snapback] I love these clever one-liners. The fact is you cut spending so that the budget balances. And when theres less things to pay for you also cut the taxes. Thats like saying John pays 1000 a month on mortgage in addition to all his other bills and makes 5000 a month at his job. John finally pays off his house so now every month he pays 1000 dollars less in bills than he used to. Since he is spending less he keeps a 1000 dollars more a month than he did previously. Cutting spending without cutting taxes is like all of a sudden even though john payed off the entire mortgage he still needs to pay 1000 dollars to the mortgage comapny anyway. When theres less to pay for theres no need for taxes to be where they are at so thats when you cut them 626153[/snapback] But lets say John's daughter gets a bunch of credits cards in college and John now has to pay those off too..should John just not pay them from his salary and say I should be able to keep my money and my daughter should be able to rack up as much debt as she wants or should John pay his bills? 626180[/snapback] I think johns daughter should pay her bills. The problem is in your analogy tax money for social spending is like a bill that we have to pay, and my argument is it should not be. If this is reversed we can say John is govt and the daughter is an average citizen. John should not have to pay for his daughters fiscal irresponsibilty. 626782[/snapback] Actually my daughter analogy has more to do with the current spending which is primarily caused by the military increases, not social spending. Lets say for this hypo it has nothing to do with fiscal irresponsibility but more to do with a supposed necessity. Lets change it like this: John's wife has just been robbed at the store and some guy followed his daughter home during her Xmas break. John, whether he needs to or not, at the behest of his family, goes out and purchases a complex security system from Brinks..the best they have. He also purchases a super camera to be aimed at his neighbors yard because his neigbor has a criminal history but had nothing to do with the above incedents(yes Iraq). Now this super camera and security system were both purchased on credit from Super Security store. Now does John have to pay these bills or say screw it, I dont want my money going to pay these bills? 626785[/snapback] for this to be valid you have to assume (yes assume) that iraq was a mistake (lets not argue this now), and second you also ahve to assume that John meaning the voters (im guesing) wants the increase in military spending. However the same exact argument can be used for wasteful social spending. But forget john for a second, lets look at the world economy. The EU's security is mostly covered by the US (look at the #s) and in fact one reason for the EU's eocnomic boom is b/c they have more money to put into a more regulated economy where they can subsidize certain products.The US should cut some military but if we cut it dramatically, it will have global repricssions. Ruight now we are the major consumers of msot products from the world but the world allows us this luxury b/c they buy are military crap
December 6, 200421 yr for this to be valid you have to assume (yes assume) that iraq was a mistake (lets not argue this now), No, let's argue this now. How could any thinking person think anything else? The evidence is clear that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. and second you also ahve to assume that John meaning the voters (im guesing) wants the increase in military spending. Apparently, they did. Bush got re-elected in spite of his lies and mismanagement. However the same exact argument can be used for wasteful social spending. True. The same exact argument could be used for wasteful business subsidies, too, or wasteful foreign aid. But forget john for a second, lets look at the world economy. The EU's security is mostly covered by the US (look at the #s) and in fact one reason for the EU's eocnomic boom is b/c they have more money to put into a more regulated economy where they can subsidize certain products.The US should cut some military but if we cut it dramatically, it will have global repricssions. No argument here. I haven't understood why we still have troops over in Europe or South Korea. Europe is stable and the South Koreans despise us. Let them both cover their own behinds.
December 6, 200421 yr for this to be valid you have to assume (yes assume) that iraq was a mistake (lets not argue this now), No, let's argue this now. How could any thinking person think anything else? The evidence is clear that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. and second you also ahve to assume that John meaning the voters (im guesing) wants the increase in military spending. Apparently, they did. Bush got re-elected in spite of his lies and mismanagement. However the same exact argument can be used for wasteful social spending. True. The same exact argument could be used for wasteful business subsidies, too, or wasteful foreign aid. But forget john for a second, lets look at the world economy. The EU's security is mostly covered by the US (look at the #s) and in fact one reason for the EU's eocnomic boom is b/c they have more money to put into a more regulated economy where they can subsidize certain products.The US should cut some military but if we cut it dramatically, it will have global repricssions. No argument here. I haven't understood why we still have troops over in Europe or South Korea. Europe is stable and the South Koreans despise us. Let them both cover their own behinds. 628236[/snapback] Iraq having nothing to do w/ 9/11 does not invalidate the war. Again lets not argue this now b/c for many people the war on terror includes all terrorists, which includes terror groups other than al qaeda or those involved w/ 9/11. Furthermore, voting for bush does not mean you want an increase in military spending. In this unfortunate two party system we only get to choose A or B, so lets see increase military spending or increase healthcare and social security spending. And the sad truth is i dont like any form of government spending but my only two choices are spend here or spend there, not less not spend
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.