I am assuming your post is sarcastic in nature but in case it is not, as a public school teacher I don't believe anyone would describe me as rich and my taxes were lowered and I do invest in the stock market through my retirement program.

 

Of course you're rich.

Pay as you go.

 

When you add something to the spending, you MUST have either an equal cut in the spending somewhere or an increase in taxes. They increase funding for education than somewhere they must cut spending (ARTS) or raise taxes.

 

Same thing as each of us probably does in our own spending.

 

This was what really helped control spending and as a result balance the budget in the 90's. The Republican Congress chose to forgo it in the 2000's.

Pay as you go doesn't work all of the time. In fact, some would say not have federal debt is bad for the economy. And the balanced budget of the 90's had more to do with the slashing of the defense and intelligence budget, a robust economy which we would soon find out was a bust, and using the social security surplus to make up the difference. A balanced budget is one of those phrases that looks good in print but not in application. BTW, I believe that anytime a law is passed that will have an effect on the budget, it must have a balancing side. So if you have a bill that proposes spending more money on high school sports bulletin boards, then you have to say where the money is coming from. Either a cut in other programs or a new tax.

Pay as you go doesn't work all of the time. In fact, some would say not have federal debt is bad for the economy. And the balanced budget of the 90's had more to do with the slashing of the defense and intelligence budget, a robust economy which we would soon find out was a bust, and using the social security surplus to make up the difference. A balanced budget is one of those phrases that looks good in print but not in application. BTW, I believe that anytime a law is passed that will have an effect on the budget, it must have a balancing side. So if you have a bill that proposes spending more money on high school sports bulletin boards, then you have to say where the money is coming from. Either a cut in other programs or a new tax.

That is pay as you go.

The concept of pay-as-you-go is enticing. Unfortunately, if I understand the Democratic definition of paygo, it doesn't quite measure up to your average person's definition. As I understand it, vast portions of Congressional spending wouldn't be subject to the paygo rules. Also, the ways the rules are structured, it seems much more likely that adding additional spending in the part of the budget that is covered by the new rules is more likely to result in a tax increase than it is the removal of some other line item. The bottom line is that for most of the budget it will be business as usual and for the rest of the budget "tax-as-you-go" appears just as appropirate a monicker as "paygo". Ask youself: what are the chances that Congressional spending will actually go down?

The concept of pay-as-you-go is enticing. Unfortunately, if I understand the Democratic definition of paygo, it doesn't quite measure up to your average person's definition. As I understand it, vast portions of Congressional spending wouldn't be subject to the paygo rules. Also, the ways the rules are structured, it seems much more likely that adding additional spending in the part of the budget that is covered by the new rules is more likely to result in a tax increase than it is the removal of some other line item. The bottom line is that for most of the budget it will be business as usual and for the rest of the budget "tax-as-you-go" appears just as appropirate a monicker as "paygo". Ask youself: what are the chances that Congressional spending will actually go down?

 

"Tax as you go" is one form of "Pay as you go". The odds of Congressional spending going down are equally weak under either party.

 

If someone doesn't care to hear the truth (tax as you go), then that person needs to decide which programs will be reduced (cut as you go). Obviously, programs such as those that provide support for the arts will be the early ones chosen, but if anyone thinks that cutting funding for the arts is going to make a substantial reduction in the size of the deficit, they are kidding themselves.

 

 

Frances

I'm going to squeeze this one in here, maybe slightly out of place, but anybody who posted on this thread will find it interesting. I don't know if everybody saw this or not, but Walter Williams column last weekend was on trade deficits and why they aren't necessarily as bad as you think:

 

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/deficit.html

While we're squeezing, let's keep in mind that economists have differences of opinion, just as we do.

 

I'm sure that Walter Williams is a highly regarded columnist, but in contrast, I will offer up the following:

 

"I have long argued that paying down the national debt is beneficial for the economy: It keeps interest rates lower than they otherwise would be and frees savings to finance increases in the capital stock, thereby boosting productivity and real incomes." - Alan Greenspan

 

While I have to admit that I don't know who Walter Williams is, I'll pay heed to Alan Greenspan - the person that guided us through one of the most stable periods in our history (economically speaking).

 

 

Frances

I'm going to squeeze this one in here, maybe slightly out of place, but anybody who posted on this thread will find it interesting. I don't know if everybody saw this or not, but Walter Williams column last weekend was on trade deficits and why they aren't necessarily as bad as you think:

 

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/deficit.html

 

 

Walter Williams' piece makes a case about trade deficits (negative difference between U.S. exports and U.S. imports) not being as bad as some think. The deficit being discussed in this thread is the federal budget deficit, which is the difference between federal tax revenue and federal spending. They are two completely different things.

Walter Williams' piece makes a case about trade deficits (negative difference between U.S. exports and U.S. imports) not being as bad as some think. The deficit being discussed in this thread is the federal budget deficit, which is the difference between federal tax revenue and federal spending. They are two completely different things.

 

That H - what a guy.

 

If I weren't married to my stove, H, I'd ask you to marry me.

 

 

Frances

Walter Williams' piece makes a case about trade deficits (negative difference between U.S. exports and U.S. imports) not being as bad as some think. The deficit being discussed in this thread is the federal budget deficit, which is the difference between federal tax revenue and federal spending. They are two completely different things.

 

I believe that's why Sting said it may be out of place in this thread.