Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 27035
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2025/07/09 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/9     

2003/1/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:27035 Activity:insanely high
1/8     Question for "conservative" sodans: If government is supposed to
        be run like a business, which implies fiscal responsibility and
        trying to make some kind of profit, why do republicans always run
        up a deficit when in power and leave it to democrats to clean up
        afterwards?  Wasn't there a budget surplus before G.W. took
        office?  Censor away, conservatives.
        \_ Why do you put conservative in quotes?  I don't put "liberal" in
           quotes.  Doesn't it look weird to see "liberal" in quotes?  I
           think it does.  --conservative before it was cool to be conservative
        \_ You're begging the question, troll boy.  The market was already in
           a freefall and the economy already sliding bigtime down hill before
           Bush took office.
           \_ That's no reason to make it worse, dumbass.
              \_ Make it worse by what, troll boy?  Maybe he should've raised
                 taxes in a recession.  No cookie, kiddo.
        \_ Hadn't the economy started to go down before Clinton left office?
           \_ Hadn't the economy started to go down before Clinton
              entered office? Daddy Bush?
              It's all politics. Conservatives are for personal freedom
              and responsibility, yet they want to legislate abortion and
              gays and whatnot. The preach "hands-off" free-market on one
              hand and then govt legislating morality and flag-jesus worship
              onthe other hand.
                \_ don't forget grants to corporations disguised
                    as programs to keep them more competitive!
              \_ four quadrants:
                        fiscal conservative, social conservative -> Republican
                        fiscal conservative, social liberal, -> Libertarian
                        fiscal liberal, social conservative,
                        fiscal liberal, social conservative -> Reaganite
                        fiscal liberal, social liberal -> Democrat
                        \_ misleading.Both parties are fiscal liberals, they
                           both like to spend. One spends on the rich, other
                           spends on the poor.
                           \_ wanting a tax cut is not spending
                              \_ Building a huge military is spending.
                                 \_ two issues: tax cut and how you
                                    divide spending.  conservatives
                                    want tax cuts.  How they spend
                                    is another matter.
                                    \_ Clinton decreased government spending
                                       as a percentage of GNP. Reagan did not.
                                       As far as I know, no Republican actually
                                       has, in spite of all the hot air:
                                       http://perspicuity.net/civics/gov-acct.html
                 \_ Whoa!  I'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal but
                    I am certainly *not* a libertarian!
                    \_ then what is your affiliation?
                       \_ I see myself as a real conservative which means small
                          government.  Small government means the government
                          basically stays out of people's lives but not in the
                          insane and extremist way the Libertarians want.  I'm
                          not insane.  I just don't want a bloated government
                          stealing my very hard earned money and giving it to
                          people who have done *nothing* to earn it except
                          bitch and cry and whine how oppressed they are and
                          how I *owe* them something for some strange reason.
                          \_ I should have also asked for your definition
                             of a Libertarian
                             \_ I read their website.  I honestly don't recall
                                the details, just that I found a lot of it
                                unrealistic, extremist, and idealistic to the
                                point of fantasy.
        \_ Nobody really wants strict fiscal responsibility during a recession.
           but all of that hot air appeals to voters.
        \_ Tax cuts imply deficits
           \_ No.  In the long term tax cuts cause the economy to grow.  Taxes
              are funds stripped from the economy that are no longer able to
              produce or create real jobs or wealth.  It's a drag on the
              economy not a growth measure (raising taxes).
              \_ So taxes are kept in Fort Knox never to be spent? Go go
                 Goldfinger!
                 \_ Taxes don't grow an economy.  Well run businesses do.  The
                    government is a source of waste and corruption, not any
                    sort of productivity, innovation, or new invention.  The
                    only things the government has created in this century are
                    poverty through dependence, and weapons.
                    \_ Well, we are only two years into the century. I'm sure
                       we can go for something much more sinister by 2101. USA!
           \_ Given a budget surplus, would it be better to:
              1. Fix the roads, bridges, and other infrastructure
              2. Invest in education, from pre-school to universities
              3. Give 90% of it to the upper 0.2% of wealthy people
                \_ that is kind of weird.  most of the tax cut will
                   go to really old rich people who derive a significant
                   portion of their income from stock dividends.
                   I don't know ANYONE who gripes about the government
                   taxing their dividend income.  i would be more convinced
                   if the administration press machine would try to show
                   that lots of jobs are created by this elite class
                   of stock dividend collectors.... but they haven't at all.
                   maybe they're busy with iraq and are trusting the GOP
                   majority in all 3 branches of the government will
                   allow them to pass anything they want and dissenting
                   views are beneath their notice.  pretty depressing.
                   \_ Don't you know what dividends even are?  They are the
                      payback to the investors from the company turning a
                      profit.  Without those investors there wouldn't be enough
                      money to run the business and a *shitload* of people
                      would be jobless.  Possibly to the point of the economy
                      simply ceasing to function.  Hey I know, let's punish
                      everyone who creates jobs by investing in the economy.
                      This whole thread is fucking ridiculous and shows the
                   \_ There is an article in the WSJ that argues that
                      instead of cutting divident tax, they should
                      give tax rebates to companies that pay dividends.
                      This will solve the double taxation problem,
                      give more money to corporations to invest, and
                      help the huge number of middle-income people
                      who hold stocks in their 401Ks, IRAs, etc. (all
                      of which essentially still have to pay tax on
                      dividends), rather than to the rich old people.
                      The other thing I hate is the child-tax credit.
                      I don't mind sharing some burden with poorer
                      people who need help caring for their kids, but
                      why should rich people who breed like pigs take
                      my money just because they have lots of kids?
                      amazing and incredible ignorance and sheer blind
                      stupidity of many of you regarding how the world works.
                       \_ Don't you know what personal income is?  They are
                          the payback to people who work.  Without workers,
                          there wouldn't be any business, and no company
                          will survive.  Possibly to the point of the economy
                          ceasing to function.  Hey I know, let's punish
                          everyone who work at jobs and make the economy
                          turn.  Nobody is asking for the elimination of
                          dividends, just whether and how it should be taxed,
                          just like nobody is asking for the elimination
                          of personal income, just how it should be taxed.
                          \_ Oh yeah?  I think income tax is bullshit.  Want
                             to tax something?  Tax people on how much use they
                             get out of the infrastructure.  Road tolls, gas,
                             cigarette, utility and other usage taxes are just
                             fine.  A euroweenie style VAT is fine too.
                             \_ Sure, now that you have understood dividend
                                and personal income, we can proceed to talk
                                about dividend tax and income tax, and whether
                                they are needed.
                                \_ I already understood divs and PI.  I believe
                                   neither are needed and in fact are harmful.
                   \_ isn't it reasonable to say that no tax on dividends
                      encourages "buy-and-hold" behavior?
                        \_ ok that's reasonable.  why doesn't the admin.
                           say this?  all i read in the newspapers
                           is "giant tax cut on dividends.  suck it up
                           assholes!"
                           \_ GWB said that?  Cool!  What a stud!
                              \_ Clinton is a stud.  Bob Dole is a stud (even
                                 though he needs viagra).  GWB ain't no stud.
                   \_ There is an article in the WSJ that argues that instead
                      of cutting divident tax, they should give tax rebates to
                      companies that pay dividends.  This will solve the double
                      taxation problem, give more money to corporations to
                      invest, and help the huge number of middle-income people
                      who hold stocks in their 401Ks, IRAs, etc. (all of which
                      essentially still have to pay tax on dividends), rather
                      than to the rich old people.  The other thing I hate is
                      the child-tax credit.  I don't mind sharing some burden
                      with poorer people who need help caring for their kids,
                      but why should rich people who breed like pigs take my
                      money just because they have lots of kids?
                      \_ Why should *anyone* get money for having kids?
                         \_ That would be even better.  I can always
                            give money myself to my neighbour who
                            needs help.
                            \_ Maybe your neighbor should've used a condom.
                   \_ If the country is to cut taxes, it should first
                      cut income taxes, next capital gains, next
                      divident taxes, and only finally, inheritance
                      tax.  This is because we should award ability,
                      not rich people with no abilities.  If you
                      keep rewarding rich people with no abilities,
                      you will create classes in the society.
                      \_ Bush.
                         \_ some folks here are actually having a real
                            discussion.  take your crap to slashdot/kero5hin.
                      \_ What's wrong with classes?  Has there *ever* been a
                         society without classes?  Is it even possible?
                         \_ big middle class, class mobility.
                            \_ I believe this is the best that can be done,
                               but you've still got classes.
                      \_ Using your POV you should put inhereitance tax first.
                         \_ Why should there be one at all?  What gives the
                            government the right to interfere in a parent's
                            transfer of family properly to other family?  Why
                            are they taxing death?
                            \_ The same reason why we don't have succession
                               monarchy and aristocracy in this country.
                               "Damnit!  I earned this country fair and
                                square by leading the country to defeat
                                its enemies and ruling it well.  Why can't
                                I pass it to my son?!"
              \_ 4. Pay off the National Debt so we no longer have to pay
                    interest to our creditors.
                 \_ These creditors being exactly who?  Bond holders, also
                    known as the American public for the most part.  The debt
                    is the government reinvesting in the country.
                    \_ Yes, it's good to go into debt to buy a house, but
                       what is the right balance? do we need buy 2,3,4 houses
                       \_ Depends.  If you can afford to buy 50 houses, that's
                          a great long term investment in many locations in
                          this country.  I can't afford 50.  I can almost
                          afford 2 in the bay area.  I'd get a second and rent
                          it out if I thought I could swing it.
        \_ I'm not a conservative, but the usual items to blame are social
           services which are not part of the Constitution(tm). If you go
           full "states' right," feds should only provide for national defense,
           trade relations between states, and maintaining law as strictly
           described by the Bill of Rights (and maybe some of the amendments).
           All social services should be done by the states themselves or
           privately (church, foundations, etc.). The deficit is because
           federal social services exist.
           \_ You sure sound like a conservative.  It's ok to be a closet
              conservative as long as you keep making conservative arguments.
           \_ Even with all of these federal services, there was a surplus
              when G.W. took office.  It was clear the economy was going
              downhill, yet he gave that surplus away to the extremely
              wealthy and put us into deficit spending this country hasn't
              seen since Reagon was in charge.  At least Reagan had a
              real reason (a strong Soviet Union) to forget about long-term
              strategy.
              \_ Exactly what surplus did GWB give to the wealthy?  There has
                 been pretty much nothing returned to anyone yet at any level.
                 To say that there's been some big giveaway is either pure
                 ignorance or a flat out malicious lie.  Oh yeah, there was
                 that big huge gigantic $300 bucks which was enough to totally
                 crush the budget.  Whatever.
                 \_ Also, the tax relief check is the same amount for most
                    taxpayers having between low 5-figure and many-figure
                    income.  Hence, in terms of percentage of income, the
                    low-income taxpayers already benefited more than the
                    high-income taxpayers even though the tax rates for
                    low-income taxpayers were lower than those for high-income
                    taxpayers.
                 \_ Dropping the top tax rate for the most wealthy.
                    \_ Child, it hasn't happened yet.  When you have clue, you
                       may return to the conversation.  Please stop drinking
                       your own poison.  No one has had their tax rate dropped.
                       I know because I'm paying that top rate and it hasn't
                       changed a bit.  I'll let you know when it has and it
                       won't be soon enough for me.
                       \_ Yes it has. You have been paying based on the (lower)
                          2002 tax rate all year, you just didn't notice it.
           \_ Do farm and business subsidies count as federal social services?
              \_ Not in the same sense, but to a degree, yes.  On the other
                 hand, there is an important need for the country to be able
                 to produce enough food and certain goods self sufficiently.
                 We definitely do not want to be dependent on some foreign
                 power for our food or other basic needs.  I consider some of
                 these subsidies to be necessary for the country's long term
                 safety, stability, and survival.  Others are pure pork and
                 should be completely ended.
                 \_ A bogus argument for subsidies. The US massively
                    overproduces "staple" farm goods, thus dropping prices,
                    and therefore subsidies. This argument assumes that
                    without subsidies there would be no farming. Wrong.
                    \_ So if there were no subsidies you think they'd just
                       grow less food and charge more and it would all be ok?
                       And who gets hurt the most by this?  The poor?  Yup.
                       I'm deeply conservative and I find this very *not* ok.
                       \_ The only reason the poor will get hurt is because
                          this distorted agricultural economy has been
                          around too long.  It is like people getting
                          addicted to drugs.   I say gradual reduction of
                          subsities.  Short-term pain, long-term gain.
                    \_ And the free-market will take care of this anyways.
                       No more republican subsidies! If anything, we need
                       to get more oil, a basic need, that's more
                       important to long-term national economic
                       health than cheese or eggs!
                       \_ Troll.  There are just as many democrat farm states
                          as republican.  That POS who switched over in the
                          Senate only did so because the dems promised him his
                          state would still get farm subsidies/pork and he'd
                          keep his position on a pork committee.  As far as oil
                          goes, we have plenty.  It's in Alaska.  It's off the
                          coast of California and Florida and probably other
                          places.  Drill for it.  It's there.
2025/07/09 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
7/9     

You may also be interested in these entries...
2013/11/25-2014/2/5 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:54754 Activity:nil
11/25   California, model for The Nation:
        http://tinyurl.com/k6crazn
        \_ 'And maybe the transaction would have proceeded faster if Mr.
           Boehner's office hadn't, according to the D.C. exchange, put its
           agent - who was calling to help finish the enrollment - on hold for
           35 minutes, listening to "lots of patriotic hold music."'
	...
2012/11/6-12/18 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:54524 Activity:nil
11/6    Four more years!
        \_ Yay! I look forward to 4 more years of doing absolutely nothing.
           It's a much better outcome than the alternative, which is 4 years
           of regress.
           \_ Can't argue with that.
        \_ Massachusetts went for Obama even though Mitt Romney was its
	...
2012/11/28-12/18 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Academia/UCLA] UID:54539 Activity:nil
11/28   http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-colleges-in-america-2012-11#3-university-of-california--berkeley-23
        We are #3! We are #3! Go beah!!!
	...
2012/11/5-12/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Reference/Tax] UID:54521 Activity:nil
11/5    "Tax Policy Center in Spotlight for Its Romney Study":
        http://www.csua.org/u/y7m (finance.yahoo.com)
        'A small nonpartisan research center operated by professed "geeks" ...
        found, in short, that Mr. Romney could not keep all of the promises he
        had made on individual tax reform ....  It concluded that Mr. Romney's
        plan, on its face, would cut taxes for rich families and raise them
	...
2012/5/16-7/20 [Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:54390 Activity:nil
5/16    Can anyone tell me what Greece is hoping for by rejecting austerity?
        From here it seems like the austerity is a pretty generous attempt
        to keep Greece from imploding entirely.   Are they hoping the
        Germans will put them on eternal state welfare, or what?
        Also, why would an outright default mean they must leave the Euro?
        Is it just that they won't be able to pay basic gvmt services
	...
2013/2/10-3/19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Uncategorized/Profanity] UID:54603 Activity:nil
2/10    I like Woz, and I like iWoz, but let me tell ya, no one worships
        him because he has the charisma of an highly functioning
        Autistic person. Meanwhile, everyone worships Jobs because
        he's better looking and does an amazing job promoting himself
        as God. I guess this is not the first time in history. Case in
        point, Caesar, Napolean, GWB, etc. Why is it that people
	...
2010/11/2-2011/1/13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:54001 Activity:nil
11/2    California Uber Alles is such a great song
        \_ Yes, and it was written about Jerry Brown. I was thinking this
           as I cast my vote for Meg Whitman. I am independent, but I
           typically vote Democrat (e.g., I voted for Boxer). However, I
           can't believe we elected this retread.
           \_ You voted for the billionaire that ran HP into the ground
	...
2010/2/22-3/30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:53722 Activity:nil
2/20    Ok serious question, NOT political.  This is straight up procedural.
        Has it been declared that we didn't find WMD in iraq? (think so).
        So why did we go into iraq (what was the gain), and if nobody really
        knows, why is nobody looking for the reason?
        \_ Political stability, military strategy (Iran), and to prevent
           Saddam from financing terrorism.
	...
2009/8/5-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:53241 Activity:kinda low
8/5     Regarding NKorea relesing the journalists, here's what I think the
        actual deal between Kim and Obama is:
        - Both agree that Kim needs to save, or gain, face to pave the way for
          his son's succession and for NK's stability.
        - Both agree that Obama doesn't like losing face by publicly
          apologizing.
	...
2009/4/27-5/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:52914 Activity:low
4/27    "Obama the first Asian-American president?"
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090427/pl_afp/uspoliticsobama100daysasia
        Just like the way Clinton was the first African-American president.
        \_ Two wars, a banking, housing, and general economic crisis, a truly
           massive deficit, and now, Swine Flu.  Has any president except for
           Lincoln and Roosevelt faced worse?
	...
2009/3/13-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:52710 Activity:nil
3/13    So Bill Clinton doesn't know what an embryo is?
        \_ obCigarJoke
	...
2009/2/27-3/6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:52655 Activity:low
2/27    CA unemployment increases from 9.3% to 10.1% for Jan
        \_ Good thing the legislature passed the biggest tax increase in
           history!  That should solve it.
           \_ because cutting taxes has done such a great job so far!
                \_ it has.. giving mortgages to poor folks did us in
                   \_ 100% horseshit.
	...
2009/2/4-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:52511 Activity:kinda low
2/3     Well said: "What gets people upset are executives being rewarded for
        failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by US taxpayers."
        \_ Turns out, he gets it.
           \_ Talk is cheap.
              \_ Freedom is strength.
        \_ Isn't this something like FDR might have said?
	...
2009/2/2-8 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:52497 Activity:nil
2/1     Pres. Obama keeps rendition
        http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story
        \_ This does not mean what you (or the LA Times) think it means.
        \_ More on how this article does not mean what you (or the idiotic
           LA times) think it means:
           http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/02/renditions
	...
2009/1/27-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:52478 Activity:nil
1/27    http://www.realnews.org/index.php-option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=189.htm
        [Title: Hilary's Bush Connection. Summary: Ties to Alan Quasha.]
        \_ I knew hillary was evil!
        \- in case you are interested, the old white guy to the right of
           the clinton-bushco picture [chalmers johnson] is a former ucb
           prof who sort of went nuts.
	...
Cache (4221 bytes)
perspicuity.net/civics/gov-acct.html
Government Spending and Financing By: Leon Felkins Written: 1/8/96 -- Revised 12/24/03 * Receipts, Outlays and the National Debt + How the Government determines how much to Spend You would think that the amount that the government spends is determined by the expenses it has. But the government, just like you and me, somehow manages to spend all it receives. Unlike most private citizens and businesses, however, the government consistently spends just a tad more than its income. Ideally, folks like you and me as well as the government, should have expenditures based primarily on its expenses. That is, no matter what our income is, spending ought to be somewhat based on real costs. It is conceivable that we might have a comfortable life style with an income that far exceeds the costs and we would simply salt away or give away the excess. On the other hand, it is conceivable that we could have emergencies and/or unanticipated large expenses that would cause us to spend more in some periods than the income. We might have to make use of the wonderful concept of borrowing to carry us through these periods. In any case, over the long haul, the reality is that most of us will adjust our spending to match our income but with periods in which they may be temporarily out of whack. When income exceeds the costs, we will put the excess in savings and when the expenses temporarily exceed the income, we will borrow. Except, in recent times, rather than feeling a moral obligation to match expenditures with income, the government has drifted in the mode of spending a bit more than the income. As you and I determine our ratio of spending to income based on what we are psychological comfortable with -- most people like expenses to be a small percentage less than income, with the excess going into savings -- the government also determines it's psychologically comfortable ratio. For the last 20 years or so, the government has felt comfortable with spending about 10% more than its income. That ratio of spending to income that the government is comfortable with is determined by public pressure -- not by what is actually needed to support government functions! That means that if you somehow convince the government to cut out some wasteful program, they will find another way to spend the money until they reach that comfortable ratio again! For this reason, the idiotic concept promoted by the media and many liberals that we ought to increase taxes so that the government can carry out needed functions results in disastrous consequences. For whatever we give the government, they will spend it -- plus a little bit more. Based on this observation then, the only way to control government spending is to control it's income. Here is a graph of the Federal Deficit since 1930 (1999-2000 estimated). Most of the data that I have presented above and that in the above mentioned book was obtained from government sources. While there is some reason to believe that the government is not above, "cooking the books" occasionally, most of us would not be able to afford obtaining the data any other way. A huge amount of historical and other information is available from the 10 Census Bureau. The 11 1998 Statistical Abstract of the United States is online with easy access. Loads of charts and graphs from which if you study it you will know as much as your representative for that is their primary source of information. You might as well access the thing and get what you can out of it, for you paid for it! If you have the stomach for it, you might want to peruse the 12 Federal Budget, also on-line. And for those with a really strong stomach, you can learn much about where we came from and do your on estimates of where we are going by looking at the 13 historical tables on the Federal Budget. What makes for an interesting challenge is to try to find some major expenditure in this massive budget. Let us say that you are aware that the government is about to buy a new computer installation for a thousand million dollars, or some such and you would like to find in the budget. For as massive as the budget is, I have never been able to find most of the major expenditures that I happen to know about.