The two most noted reasons (other than the war ) posted here for opposing Bush have been the Deficit and the Environment. This week there hav e been serveral reports from supposedly unbiased sources that have looked at spending plans proposed on both sides. The conclusion is that the deficit will remain the same wth either candidate. Bush will reduce taxes and spend less than Kerry $9 to $1. Kerry will increase taxes and spend more than Bush . The war in Iraq will be essentially treated the same by both. I have exposed your pro environment intellectual dishonesty . So it seems your number 1, 2 and 3 reasons for voting for Kerry are false assumptions. Whats wrong with you libs are you blind or just stupid?

The only thing you've exposed is your inability to grasp factual truth. You live in a bubble far removed from rationale or contemporary logic. You live by the opinion of radically right-winged pundits, not harboring the ability to form a fact-based opinion of your own accord. Your debating skills consist of regurgitating opinionated inaccuracies and then countering with sophomoric insults and attacks on anyone that dares to point out your insanity.

You're a real piece of work, Elvis. The only one that doesn't realize it is you.

What I do no is when GH and the other stooges get all emotional and fail to address the post it means I nailed it. I would call you intellectually dishonest but you are from sapanaway and using the term intellectual any where near you would be a travesty.

Lets chew on the numbers a bit GH. Maybe you can get a 3rd grader from a better School dist. to help you.

first from a conservative view I will post a left leaning view that mirrors this on Monday.


Kerry recently pledged that, if elected, he would cut the budget deficit in half by 2008. Given the projected $422 billion budget deficit in 2004, his pledge translates into a $211 billion budget deficit in the next four years.1

Realistically, Senator Kerry's current tax and spending proposals would actually increase the budget deficit. Third-party estimates project that Senator Kerry's proposals would raise the 2008 budget deficit to $525 billion. Even a rosy projection that, whenever possible, relies on the Kerry campaign's own numbers reveals a 2008 budget deficit of $443 billion.

This budget deficit is merely a symptom of the runaway spending disease. By focusing on reducing the short-term budget deficit, Senator Kerry ignores the mountain of impending Social Security and Medicare debt that, if left unreformed, will dwarf any temporary savings that could be achieved.

When former President Bill Clinton's campaign promises proved incompatible with his deficit reduction pledge, he used tax increases to bridge the gap. Should Senator Kerry choose the same route, he would have to raise taxes by $2,090 to $2,829 per household (depending on which budget estimates are used) in addition to his current proposed tax increases.

Senator Kerry's Proposals
A closer look at Senator Kerry's proposed budget reduction strategy reveals the following:

Taxes. Senator Kerry has proposed repealing the Bush tax cuts for households earning over $200,000 annually while making permanent the recent middle-class tax cuts. In addition, Senator Kerry has called for new tax credits for health insurance and higher education, a series of business tax changes, and a fix to prevent the alternative minimum tax (AMT) from steeply raising taxes for millions of middle-class families.2

Spending. Senator Kerry has proposed a new comprehensive health care plan that aims for 95 percent overall health coverage and 100 percent coverage for children. He has also called for sharp spending increases in areas such as education, aid to states, homeland security, defense, Head Start, veterans' benefits and health care, and combating global AIDS.

Budget Deficit. Senator Kerry recently pledged to halve the budget deficit by 2008. Given the current Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate of a 2004 budget deficit of $422 billion, his pledge translates into a $211 billion budget deficit in 2008.3

Calculation 1: A Rosy Estimate
Whenever possible, this budget estimate relies on either the Kerry campaign's own estimates or the rosiest estimates widely available. Beginning with the CBO's 10-year budget deficit baseline,4 Senator Kerry's tax proposals are incorporated using estimates from the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.5 They project that the proposed income and estate tax changes (excluding targeted tax proposals, such as health care and education, which are counted on the spending side) would increase the budget deficit by $364 billion over 10 years.6

This estimate excludes Senator Kerry's pledge to fix the AMT; therefore, the CBO estimate of $340 billion over 10 years must be added as well.7 This estimate also accepts Senator Kerry's controversial contention that his business tax proposals would be revenue neutral.

Regarding spending, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) analysts summed up all of Senator Kerry's spending proposals (as well as his targeted tax proposals) using the Kerry campaign's own cost estimates whenever possible.8 This estimate totals $1.116 trillion over the next decade.

Table 1 shows that even these lower-end projections reveal a 2008 budget deficit of $443 billion--which is $232 billion higher than the Kerry campaign's $211 billion target. Far from being a deficit reduction plan, Kerry's plan actually increases the 2008 budget deficit above the CBO baseline. Unless he scales back his ambitious spending plans, Senator Kerry would need to raise taxes by an additional $232 billion--or $2,090 per household--on top of his current proposed tax increases in order to fulfill his deficit reduction pledge.


Calculation 2: A Skeptical Estimate
Campaigns typically understate the cost of their spending proposals. In addition, tax rate increases, such as those proposed by Senator Kerry, reduce incentives to work, save, and invest, thereby reducing economic growth and leaving less income to tax. Consequently, it is likely that Senator Kerry's spending proposals will cost more than advertised and that his proposed tax increases will produce less revenue than projected.

A skeptical estimate adjusts for these factors. On the tax side, The Heritage Foundation's tax model estimates that Senator Kerry's income, estate, and business tax proposals would increase the budget deficit by $438 billion over the next decade (excluding his targeted tax proposals, which are counted on the spending side in this analysis).9 Senator Kerry's business tax provisions account for most of the difference between the Heritage Foundation and Tax Policy Center estimates. The Tax Policy Center analysis excluded this policy (which the Kerry campaign claimed would be deficit neutral), yet the Heritage Foundation calculated a $38 billion revenue loss over the decade.

In addition to its earlier calculation, AEI also added up the Kerry spending (and targeted tax) proposals by relying primarily on third-party sources. This method calculated $1.734 trillion in new spending over the decade, which is significantly higher than the earlier $1.117 trillion estimate that relied heavily on the Kerry campaign's estimates.10 Most of the $617 billion difference between the two estimates can be found in Senator Kerry's proposals to provide mandatory funding for veterans' health care (estimates range between $26 billion and $300 billion over 10 years); near-universal health care ($653 billion to $850 billion); and education ($403 billion to $492 billion).11

Overall, this skeptical estimate of Senator Kerry's proposals projects a 2008 budget deficit of $525 billion, which is $314 billion above Kerry's $211 billion deficit target. (See Table 2 and Chart 1.) Unless he cuts spending, closing that gap would require a tax increase of $2,829 per household in addition to Senator Kerry's current tax increase proposals.





Conclusion
Senator Kerry has promised to halve the budget deficit to $211 billion by 2008. However, by any reasonable calculation, his budget proposals would increase the budget deficit well above the current CBO baseline. A rosy calculation reveals a 2008 budget deficit of $443 billion, while a more skeptical calculation shows a $525 budget deficit. The deficit, however, is merely a symptom of the budget problem of runaway federal spending, which cannot be solved without addressing runaway entitlements.

If elected, Senator Kerry might be tempted to follow former President Clinton's lead by choosing steep tax increases to fulfill his deficit reduction pledge. Depending on which budget estimates are used, that approach would require additional tax increases of between $2,090 and $2,829 per household. Given that federal spending already tops $21,000 per household, those tax increases would be a painful price for taxpayers to pay.

Brian M. Riedl is Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. This represents the CBO baseline as of September 2004. See Congressional Budget Office, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update," September 2004, p. 4, at http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5773&sequence=0 (September 15, 2004).

2. Proposals can be found at http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/ (September 15, 2004).

3. See http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/budget.pdf (September 2, 2004).

4. CBO baseline as of September 2004. See Congressional Budget Office, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update."

5. Leonard E. Burman and Jeffrey Rohaly, "Senator Kerry's Tax Proposals," Urban Institute, July 23, 2004, at http://www.urban.org/urlprint.cfm?ID=8820 (September 15, 2004), as well as yearly data provided by the study's authors.

6. The CBO baseline assumes that all of the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. By making some of the tax cuts permanent, the Kerry plan reduces overall tax revenues, albeit by less than would be the case if all tax cuts were made permanent.

7. See Congressional Budget Office, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update," p. 17.

8. Third-party estimates were used for Kerry campaign proposals not accompanied by cost estimates. See Eric Engen and Kevin Hassett, "An Analysis of the Ten-Year Costs of Senator Kerry's Spending Proposals," American Enterprise Institute, August 12, 2004, at http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040812_KerryB2.pdf (September 15, 2004). Yearly estimates were created by taking AEI's 10-year estimate ("Kerry 2: Kerry's Totals") and breaking it down annually by assuming that each program grows by the inflation rate over the decade.

9. Heritage Foundation tax model calculations.

10. Even this "skeptical" estimate may be low. The $850 billion 10-year cost of Senator Kerry's health plan is $650 billion less than a new American Enterprise Institute cost estimate. See http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21166,filter.all/pub_detail.asp (September 15, 2004).

11. Eric Engen and Kevin Hassett, "An Analysis of the Ten-Year Costs of Senator Kerry's Spending Proposals." Yearly estimates were created using AEI's 10-year estimate ("Kerry 2: Our Totals") and breaking it down annually by assuming that each program grows by the inflation rate over the decade.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Theking:
it is still his opinion and no one man is an expert in all areas and natually brings his bias.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I kinda liked Kerry's reply on the 3rd debate to Bush's attempt to label Kerry as a tax & spend liberal, "being lectured to by George Bush about fiscal policy is a bit like being lectured to by Tony Soprano about fighting crime."

TK can't spell, but he'll make fun of others' intelligence.

Keep up the good work, Cowboy.

DanS,
You do not understand the current budget so I would not expect you to grasp this issue. I can spell fine just cannot type as fast as Ithink. It would not be fair if i had all the looks and brains and could type also. Note how not one of you dealt with the subject of the thread. A bunch of angry libs with one oar in the water.

Is that right?

Did you see my test scores on Budgetary Analysis? Oh.......so you're just shooting off your mouth again?

Thought so.

DanS,

Based on our converstaion on the deficit a few months back that would be correct. Maybe you where distracted by the Nancy Drew book you where reading.

And maybe you were distracted by searching for your d!ck. :p

Gee.........I thought being a juvenile might be more fun than that was.

What about the deficit? Was I supposed to buy all your lame-assed arguments about why Bush spends like a drunken sailor while cutting taxes for the rich?

Gee you thought you were right about the deficit, whatever your blather was, and everyone else was wrong. Big phuckin' surprise there. I suppose the Nobel-laureate economists that say Bush is clueless are "intellectually dishonest"?

Could you be more full of yourself? And you called me pompous. Hilarious!

DNans,

Nobel-laureate econs. Name one and show the work? No no you cannot do that all you can do is jump in an insult people and run. When asked for facts you claim it's no ones business . Maybe the Nobel laureates are like Wangari Maathai who won the Nobel peace prize last week. She claims that Aids is a biological warfare conspiracy of the whiteman to kill black people.

Elvis,

She claims that Aids is a biological warfare conspiracy of the whiteman to kill black people.
------------------------------------------------------------

Can you provide a source for this quote? I read her statement and it did not accuse all whitemen but only inferred that she believed it was created in a laboratory. The deliberate introduction of the virus into the human population was not an act of the white race against the black race but a crime against humanity by sick people no matter their race.

Your comments is a good example of how the neocon right-ist try their very best to devide us along racial, cultural, and socio-economic lines. Black against white. Rich against poor. Have and have more's against the impoverish and have less'es.

Again please post a reference to the misleading quote you previously submitted.

Thanks in advance.

JLH

"but only inferred that she believed it was created in a laboratory."

from Time Europe

"YOU'VE SAID AIDS IS A BIOLOGICAL WEAPON MANUFACTURED BY THE DEVELOPING WORLD TO WIPE OUT THE BLACK RACE. do you still believe that? I have no idea who created aids and whether it is a biological agent or not. But I do know things like that don't come from the moon. I have always thought that it is important to tell people the truth, but I guess there is some truth that must not be too exposed.

WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO? I'm referring to aids. I am sure people know where it came from. And I'm quite sure it did not come from the monkeys. Why can't we be encouraged to ask ourselves these questions? "


Yep lots of black owned and operated labs in the developed world.

Where does that say the White Race or Whitemen "plural" are responsible for delivering Aids to Africa or any place else? If it was true that maybe a few white men or a few brown men of what ever race commited this crime does that make and entire race responsible? I say no! Those people that would do such a thing are savages and can't be recognized as representation of any given race.

You must be kidding yourself if you believe laboratories are only used by Whitemen. Here in America labs are staffed with all races of people. All Race are represented in academia. You need to come out of that colonial fog you're in and join the 21st Century. Maybe it's just guilt from your being a racist that has you jumping to the defense of all white men. Most White men that are not racist would not be so defensive and jump to such an extreme as you did from her comments. Acording to your statements, there is only one race that does research and development of weapons of mass destruction (biological,chemical, and atomic) and that race is White. I beg to differ. There are many races represented, if you look at the facts.

Remember, here in the US, it's our tax money that finances most of these labs. White, Black, Brown, Yellow and Red are all represented on the Tax Roll.

Your example does not illustrate your point at all. Try again.

The developed world is a white majority. Sorry if you missed the implied racism or more likely refuse to acknoledge it. Reality is tough on libs. It's easier for them to imagine their own reality then line up only the facts that support that dream. You will learn more about this in your upper level college psych courses when you are a Jr or Sr.

Elvis

The developed world is a white majority
------------------------------------------------------------

Because there is a white majority does that mean that all whites have to share the responsibility for a crime against humanity by a few individuals, if it did indeed happened that way? That's like saying because there is a kkk somewhere in the developed world, then all white men must hate the black man. Maybe that's the case with the White Men you associate with but not for many of us around these parts.

Get over yourself! I'm sure that most Whites or any other race for that matter would not want to claim you as representive of their race. You are not the best example of the White race or any race and I'm sure their are very few that will go along with your assertions in these parts. It's probably pent up anger from the out come of The Civil War, where your Confederates lost big time, triggering a hateful and repulsive personality. Remember that Dixie can be a reality in just 2 hours by Air from Seattle. There you might find your paradise of like minded people, but I dought it.

I'm glad I was teachable while in my Soc Classes during my college years. Unlike you, I want try to pretend to know all things and will remain educable in order to have a more fulfillling life.

Once again.............hello pot, meet the kettle.

Look sh!thead, you want to throw underhanded insults like your Nancy Drew comment? Go ahead........but quit crying like a b!tch when you get the same in return.


Here's your list of names. Keep waving that red herring about the Peace Prize and maybe they'll disappear.


On August 25, 2004, MSNBC reported that in a letter released the previous day, ten Nobel Prize winning economists had endorsed John Kerry for president saying that Bush’s “fiscal irresponsibility threatens the long-term economic security and prosperity of our nation.” They said Bush had “embarked on a reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818277

The ten economists who signed the letter of support for Kerry are: George Akerlof and Daniel McFadden of the University of California at Berkeley, Kenneth Arrow and William Sharpe of Stanford University, Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University, Lawrence Klein of the University of Pennsylvania, Douglass North of Washington University, Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow of MIT and Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University.

Now go ahead and tell me how wrong these Nobel-Laureates are, and how right you are. Thanks. Maybe Rory can give a cut-n-paste to help you discredit these economists.

Exactly what i thought you would post . What a weakling. I asked you to name them and show the work for a reason. Their is no economic reasoning behind that piece. They are all liberals endorsing thier party. Lets see their economic reasoning show me the math that lead them to believe that Kerry's policies will be better economically? You cannot do it because it is not there. Every single last independent review of the two candidates proposals shows that Kerry will out spend Bush 9 to 1 to keep his promises. You did not understand our current budget situation and how it created deficits and you do not understand how Kerry's proposal will make it worse. You are an economic panty waist spewing incomplete data to support your niave conclusions. Thats code for LIBERAL weenie.

What a wonderful ploy, Elvis. Keeping asking for more and more in-depth information to prove you wrong, knowing that eventually it will be impossible to provide that information, therefor - in your bubble - proving someone wrong.

How about showing us the math to prove your point? Show us why the Nobel Prize winning economists are wrong and should have their Nobel's revoked. You're obviously smarter then 10 economists put together. :rolleyes: Is that with or without half your brain tied behind your back?

GH, I have asked for no more than I asked the first time for the reading challenged. Themn again if you did acknowledge that you could not make a silly point out of nothing. The math is above , Skippy. Having a Nobel prize means diddly squat on this issue because they provided no work just their opinion. Again 100% of the independent comparisons on the candidates proposals show Kerry outspending Bush $9-1 with the deficit remaing the same. That means with Kerry it will cost you $2k+ more.

Here is some more math for you math lovers.

For people who filed a $10,000 taxable income in 2003, their tax rate had gone down to 10%, compared to 15% in 1998. That's a savings of 33%

For $20K, down from 15% in '98 to 11.5% in '03, for a savings of 23%.

For $50K, down from 17% to 13.6%, for a savings of 20%.

For $100K, down from 22.5% to 18.6%, for a savings of 17%.

For $200K, down from 27.8% to 23.7%, for a savings of 15%.

For $300K, down from 30.8% to 26.8%, for a savings of 13%.

So predictable.

yes Dan you are all talk and no action.

Likewise, Mr. Mouth.

Ouch! I'll put a bandaid on that. You hit like a Husky.