A simple web search, provides many references that NPR does recieve govt money.......including NPR's own website.
http://www.npr.org/about/urbanmyth.html
Economists see 'booming economy'
- Thread starter keith
- Start date
- Status
http://www.npr.org/about/urbanmyth.html
Oh let me add for reference the average tax rate in the county for real estate is 3.2% on market value. The two employees I spoke of in my post that built new homes outside the county are paying 1.9% in RE taxes. Most of the suburbs of the county have a 1% wage tax with a handful with 1.5%. The city of Pittsburgh has a 3% wage tax.
absolutely correct. US consumers are more than a $1 trillion in debt. I talk with relatives who like Bush cause of the tax cuts, they don't seem to understand or care that they will pay those cuts back with interest in the future. All i have to say is Republicans overspend in military and democrats in wasteful social programs. I laugh when people mention reagan as one of the best presidents and Carter as one of the worst. carter cancells the B-1 program since the plane would be worthles against Soviet defenses and routes funding on the B-2 which can be undetected and complete its mission. Cowboy reagan comes in, activates B-1 while cutting funds for B-2. Yrs later we have a bunch of B-1s who are used rarely and in most cases they can be replaced by the B-52s and fewer B-2s at a higher price since we bought less of them. cowboy Reagan pulls the WW2 cruiser
and BTW who can forget the Commanche? or the Apache? we would be better off buying the Mi-24 Hinds from the Russians to hunt terrorists in afgahnistan. It would invoke some nasty memories for them and it would not be shot down by small caliber gunfire like the Apaches in Iraq.
GWBush comes in and the military crying from lack of funding from the clintons years, now get not a check but the whole check book. And despite all the $$$ they get, they have more laptops than flak jackets.
Keith,
I went to the site you got your figures from and I think your numbers list total debt, public and private. I guess the discussion should clarify "deficit" and "debt". Clinton produced surpluses instead of deficts but the debt remained. The discussion was what should we do with surpluses, pay the debt down or spend them.
here's the figures I got:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/sheets/hist01z1.xls
Year Revenue Spending Deficit
1992 1,091,279 1,381,655 -290,376
1993 1,154,401 1,409,489 -255,087
1994 1,258,627 1,461,877 -203,250
1995 1,351,830 1,515,802 -163,972
1996 1,453,062 1,560,535 -107,473
1997 1,579,292 1,601,250 -21,958
1998 1,721,798 1,652,585 69,213
1999 1,827,454 1,701,891 125,563
2000 2,025,218 1,788,773 236,445
2001 1,991,194 1,863,895 127,299
2002 1,853,173 2,010,975 -157,802
2003
estimate 1,836,218 2,140,77 -304,159
As you can see years 98-2001 we were taking in more money than we were spending. That changed in 2002.
[ April 02, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: needtoknow ]
I went to the site you got your figures from and I think your numbers list total debt, public and private. I guess the discussion should clarify "deficit" and "debt". Clinton produced surpluses instead of deficts but the debt remained. The discussion was what should we do with surpluses, pay the debt down or spend them.
here's the figures I got:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/sheets/hist01z1.xls
Year Revenue Spending Deficit
1992 1,091,279 1,381,655 -290,376
1993 1,154,401 1,409,489 -255,087
1994 1,258,627 1,461,877 -203,250
1995 1,351,830 1,515,802 -163,972
1996 1,453,062 1,560,535 -107,473
1997 1,579,292 1,601,250 -21,958
1998 1,721,798 1,652,585 69,213
1999 1,827,454 1,701,891 125,563
2000 2,025,218 1,788,773 236,445
2001 1,991,194 1,863,895 127,299
2002 1,853,173 2,010,975 -157,802
2003
estimate 1,836,218 2,140,77 -304,159
As you can see years 98-2001 we were taking in more money than we were spending. That changed in 2002.
[ April 02, 2004, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: needtoknow ]
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
ALS ..that S&L scandle ..just like welfare or the "peace dividend" .....argh ..
That "stolen, swindled, or scammed" revenue WAS PART OF THE ECONOMY. It is the biggest proof that you can falsely sustain (prop up) a scam with "borrow peter to pay paul" economics ...until the fuel runs low.
It was the exact same thing with the stock market.
Have a party ..life is good! Oh-oh ..time to pay
Does it matter if the scam is from "white collar crime" or a tax cut from a bona fide politician? Both lead you down a dead end path with a future burden. The difference being that when a politician does it ...you can track and plot the course instead of just the think tanks knowing it.
If you don't think that the S&L crisis was "allowed" to evolve into the mega problem it did ...??? Nothing of that magnitude can evolve undetected. It's the same with the stock market.
We are being routinely "harvested" to equalize some pressure differential. There will never be too much prosparity in this nation. It apparently upsets some balance in nature and someone manages to rob you of it (read into the statement a little). All booms are there to eventually bust.
That "stolen, swindled, or scammed" revenue WAS PART OF THE ECONOMY. It is the biggest proof that you can falsely sustain (prop up) a scam with "borrow peter to pay paul" economics ...until the fuel runs low.
It was the exact same thing with the stock market.
Have a party ..life is good! Oh-oh ..time to pay
Does it matter if the scam is from "white collar crime" or a tax cut from a bona fide politician? Both lead you down a dead end path with a future burden. The difference being that when a politician does it ...you can track and plot the course instead of just the think tanks knowing it.
If you don't think that the S&L crisis was "allowed" to evolve into the mega problem it did ...??? Nothing of that magnitude can evolve undetected. It's the same with the stock market.
We are being routinely "harvested" to equalize some pressure differential. There will never be too much prosparity in this nation. It apparently upsets some balance in nature and someone manages to rob you of it (read into the statement a little). All booms are there to eventually bust.
It's hard to understand exactly who is quoting what. In this link, you will see the surplus/deficit in table 1.1, and the surplus numbers are exactly as you have them:
US budget
Unfortunately, there is also table 7.1 - Federal Debt, which agrees with my numbers (they are not "mine", they are the official US government numbers). Note that the table I used takes yearly snapshots on September 30, whereas table 7.1 uses December 31. This is only federal debt, not federal plus public.
Now you have a situation where we are running a "surplus" but the debt is increasing. This is fine, there is nothing to say that the debt has to go up, stay the same, or go down. It's definitely sleazy though, how the numbers are presented to Joe Taxpayer.
Now that this has your interest, consider where the social security surplus is accounted for? You guessed, added into current revenues and spent.
It's about time this mess was cleaned up, but who will be the first in government to admit the numbers are cooked?
Let's see a table showing (revenues)-(spending)-(increase_in_debt)-(social_security_surplus)-(medicare_surplus).
The economy was good at the mid to end of 1990's, and it is now at the beginning of another boom. Unless there is a major interruption (e.g. Islamist thugs) we will back in some kind of "surplus" within 5 years.
Keith.
That's an egregious half-truth (more like 1/5 truth) used to justify irresponsible "feel-good" tax cuts. Yes, the theory exists that lower income tax rates raise durrable goods orders and other spending to such a level that other taxes will make up for the difference and then some. Except, that doesn't really hold true 80% of the time. When income tax rates are waaayyy too high, then it holds true. But for the last two decades income tax rates have been fluxuating within a safe margin.
But these more recent tax cuts cut way below the threshold. States and municipalities are losing a crapload of federal funding. So state and local taxes are being raised, cities are doubleing parking tickets, state parks are closing, etc etc etc etc etc.
These are feel-good tax cuts meant to buy votes--pure and simple. We will be paying for these big time in the future. Think about it. If they were fiscally responsible, EVERYONE would be scrambling to cut taxes because it's also popular.
And you can't play both sides of the coin with this war either. If you have the balls to go to war, at least have the balls to pay for it. Bush is trying to win a popularity contest in the short term by waging a war and not paying for it.
I read in the paper today that the state is looking into wage reductions with state and federal projects. Gov Rendel (D) is considering action with the legislators (R) controlled, on lowering a state minimum contract wage.
Seems the Union wages and benefits are killing off a lot of projects due the labor costs associated with construction. The money isn't there anymore to keep paying premium wages.
Seems the Union wages and benefits are killing off a lot of projects due the labor costs associated with construction. The money isn't there anymore to keep paying premium wages.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Yes, and fueled by a consumer credit economy conveniently lasted until Ronnie was out of office. When the shop til you drop crowd ran out of steam ..Bush Sr. (remember "know new taxes") had the full wieght of the Reagan tax cuts (in conjunction with his VASTLY expanded military spending) fall in his lap and lost him a second term. Every President since Reagan has signed the biggest tax increase in history ..and the national debt just keeps on climbing out of sight. When those T-bills and bonds come due (combined with all of us retiring and receiving medicare)...we are all in for a rude awakening.
Lower taxes are a good thing. But if any of you believe that any politician is truly going to lower taxes you really haven't looked behind us to see that no matter who is in office ...we end up in worse fiscal shape in a short time.
None of you would run your house like a Republican ..cutting your income while pulling out the plastic ..no matter how good your wife and kids felt about the new TV or washer and dryer. Sooner or later the bill comes due.
If cutting taxes truly afforded any sustainable increase in revenue ...then the theory would be that zero taxes would produce infinite revenue ...and that just isn't sensible.
Then the problem isn't "high taxation" ..it's lack of "revenue generation" probably because Pittsburg has lost most of it industrial base that has funded it for the past 50 years. That is, job loss and the coversion from an industrial/manufacturing to a service economy. There may be no way out of this once you've built a monster of the size of Pittsburg. Philadelphia is no different. The part that most in the surrounding, well funded, suburbs ignore is that the urban money pit that they escape from is just like the USA to the world economy. We're the biggest debtor nation on the planet ...yet everyone is married to our economy. Those escaping to the suburbs to escape high taxes ..are still dependant upon Pittsburg (in one form or another and varring degrees) for their "being".
We lived a very bloated life for the past 50 years. No real wage increases have occured since 1972 or 1973 (per capita). How do you fund a formerly very well funded and bloated government as the revenue diminshes?
Borrow your way out of it?
You have to remember the S&L fiasco that George H. Bush got saddled with. That cost the American tax payer Billions. That wasn't helping with Governments need for money. Had we not had the S&L mess George H may not have had to raise taxes.
But that was 14 years ago and fuzzy math as well as fuzzy memories come into play.
But that was 14 years ago and fuzzy math as well as fuzzy memories come into play.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Absolutely! We're an old and aging workforce. It's mainly the cost of doing business that is sending our jobs off shore. Workers comp, medical insurance, waste treament and disposal. We're the richest nation in the world and the most expensive.
When the Japanese built their plants in the US (to pay the labor intensive part of the bill in US $$$) they didn't build in Detroit or Lansing. They built in the open corn fields and hired 20 year olds. If my company, a privately held small company that makes medical devices, finds that our 130 employee work force is getting too expensive ...it will move to a new area with a better set of demographics.
Big industry, outside of the auto and defense industry, is DEAD in this country. You may have a few hold outs in the chemical companies ...pharmacuticals perhaps ..but most companies that I've seen thriving are 300 (maybe 500) or less people ..the land and building are generic and can be readapted to another purpose ..and are cheap enough to recoup costs in a very few years. They can then shut down ..sell or move wihtout any major "commitments" to anyone.
This is our future for employment of "labor" and it won't be done in a high tax environment.
Funny thing about "movin south". Mack truck found out that many of their workers were "goin' fishin'" ...and couldn't seem to break the habit after payday. You can make the rural south "non-rural" ..but you can't make the rural southerners "non-rural" ..so to speak.
[ April 03, 2004, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
That's right, ALS. And I have mixed emotions about that. First, I think it's pretty crappy that they'd have to take a pay cut due to dwindling federal funds to the states... defeats the purpose of a tax cut doesn't it?
On the other hand, of all the many, many, many government (all state, city, and local) employees--not contractors mind you--I've had to deal with, most every one of them was overpaid, under-worked, and would never be able to keep a job that wasn't protected for them. So.......
I dunno.
On the other hand, of all the many, many, many government (all state, city, and local) employees--not contractors mind you--I've had to deal with, most every one of them was overpaid, under-worked, and would never be able to keep a job that wasn't protected for them. So.......
I dunno.
"On the other hand, of all the many, many, many government (all state, city, and local) employees--not contractors mind you--I've had to deal with, most every one of them was overpaid, under-worked, and would never be able to keep a job that wasn't protected for them. So......."
-------------------------------------------------------
Asinine, it is the prequel to workfare and you've nailed it.
-------------------------------------------------------
Asinine, it is the prequel to workfare and you've nailed it.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Talking with many immigrants from third world nations, where official corruption is rampant, I offered that in America we have "legal" corruption. No, you can't just pay an officer 300 daka (spl?) and have him forget about your accident ...but you pay for the employment of inusurance and regulatory personnel that far outstrip the need for "backsheesh".
We're paid to be good!! Heck, and here I am ...good for nothin'
- Status
