The price of your lowered taxes

[Science Abuse]

The Bush administration is still clinging to the hope that they will be able to keep taxes down, while the cost of running the country and the war skyrockets. Some day we will be forced to wake up and realize that we need tax revenue to survive as a nation. W is counting on the realization coming after he leaves office. They keep cutting and cutting, but we're still in the hole and plumeting further. When the shit hits the fan, we'll see a spike in taxes that will make us wish we'd just spent 5% more over the last 8 years. Worse still, when we hit this fiscal pothole, there will be no more federal programs left to help anyone.

We've already seen the Dept of the interior propose and pass huge hikes in park admittance fees. Where once they were almost free, some have jumped to $80. Here is only one example of what is being done by the Forest Service and BLM just to get by, and even they have to give a sizable cut to the fed:

 

It will affect many, many hikers and climbers. There is already way too much private land in the mountains. This is about the stupidest thing Bush has done to date, and I urge hikers and climbers to write all the letters they can. (Sorry I don't have a link as this was emailed to me).

 

Forest and BLM acreage for sale?

Revenue: Environmental groups blast the proposals

By Robert Gehrke

The Salt Lake Tribune

 

WASHINGTON - Tucked amid thousands of pages of President Bush's $2.77 trillion budget is a proposal to sell off tens of thousands of acres of national forests and Bureau of Land Management land.

The two separate proposals are part of an effort to make the agencies operate more efficiently and generate new revenue in tight budget times, agency officials say. Together, they would generate more than $1 billion over five years.

But to environmental groups, it's like eBay for public lands. "You marry these two up together and what you have is them proposing a billion-dollar privatization program," said Dave Alberswerth, a public lands expert with The Wilderness Society. "When Western residents wake up to the fact that the Bush administration has

a . . . scheme to divest the public of its lands, I don't think people are going to like that very much."

The BLM program seeks to sell $30 million of land in the first year, and would grow from there. Over five years, the sales would generate about $260 million, according to budget projections.

Mike Ferguson, budget officer for BLM, said the agency identifies lands through its land-use plans that have little scenic, recreational or mineral value and are hard to manage, often because they are isolated. But they could be of use to some private party.

Congress gave BLM the authority to sell land in 2000, but only those acres that had already been identified as surplus.

The new proposal would change that, and would direct 70 percent of revenues from land sales into the treasury, where it could be used for any federal program. Four percent would go to the states, and the remainder could be used by BLM for things like campground or trail

maintenance or weed eradication.

Currently, land sale revenue is used to buy new lands with wildlife habitat or other values. The BLM has about $25 million in its land acquisition fund, revenues from earlier land sales, Ferguson said. In 2005, the BLM sold off 8,409 acres for a total of $16 million.

"We probably don't need to acquire as much additional land as we're disposing of and we have a lot of other needs in terms of managing the lands we do have," said Ferguson. "It's nice to be able to find a revenue stream that will help meet some of the other discretionary programs."

The Forest Service proposal would liquidate up to 200,000 acres of federal forestland - parcels that are deemed impractical or unnecessary to retain - with the anticipated $800 million in proceeds directed to a program to fund rural schools.

Utah schools, for example, received nearly $2 million from the Secure Rural Schools program last year.

The program currently is funded with taxpayer dollars, but by selling the land, that money could be spent elsewhere.

"There could be a lot of hyperbole on a proposal like this," said Forest Service spokesman Dan Jiron. "This proposal . . . is pretty contained to small parcels, anywhere from a fraction of an acre to less than 200 acres. Mid-range would be 10 to 100 acres, disconnected

and inefficient to manage."

At the end of the week the Forest Service plans to publish a preliminary list of lands it has identified as being eligible for sale, should Congress approve the program. Jiron could not say what, if any, Utah forest lands would be on the list.

Alberswerth said that, by estimating revenue, the Bush

administration is setting a quota and letting deficit reduction drive public lands policy.

"Here's a case where they will have a mandate and a target, a quota of money they have to raise according to this budget from land sales each year," Alberswerth said. "The problem here is that there doesn't seem to be particular rationale [to the sales] other than to raise money."

Ferguson said that is not the case. "It's not that we're going out to look for some certain lands to bring it up to a certain dollar amount," he said.

BLM land sales are rare in Utah, the last one taking place in Vernal several years ago, and it was fairly small, said state BLM spokesman Don Banks. There has been some interest in another sale of some BLM land in Washington County, he said.

In the draft of the BLM's management plan for the Price area, the agency identified dozens of parcels that could be disposed of by the agency, though the number of acres is unclear.

Southern Nevada has been where most of the land-sale action has taken place, with the BLM selling off chunks of land surrounding the Las Vegas area.

Before you tout those benifits, look at how much land was hocked, and how little they got for it. Then compare the small amount that made its way back to the local comunities.

Also consider who will be buying these lands. Soem enviro groups may cherry pick a few choice bits for preservation, but beond that it's going to go to developers, people with lots of money that will just be making a shitpot more off these lands. In fact, there's a huge amount of lobbying in the vegas area for this.

The fiscal irresponcebility of this administration is staggering.

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country, pay your fucking taxes.

 

Point, we shouldn't be at this point, none of these cuts should be neccesary. This land is your land, this land is my land. It's ours, and it shouldn't be put upp for sale because some one wants the fed to go bankrupt just after he leaves office.

[Science Abuse]

On a side note, did you know that if an oil company finds oil under your back yard, all they must do is file some paperwork and they can take that land for their own drilling purposes? They dont have to pay for mining rights, they dont have to pay for any damage they do. You just get a letter and a small check for assumed market value for the parcel, and before you can file an appeal, there's a derek where your barn used to be, and a nasty stink in the air, 24/7.

[Guest Luetic]

I take it you've never studied economics? If you had, you'd have a firm understanding of the Laffer Curve and how both parties try to shift it.

Cutting taxes increases government revenue, increasing taxes lowers government revenue. The federal government has a lot more money coming in now that it cut taxes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/chart_bowyer12-15-05.gif

 

you don't get more money in the government pot to spend by increasing taxes. You get more by cutting taxes.

 

http://www.investopedia.com/images/terms/laffercurve.gif

[controler]

Luetic then where is the budget surplus Bush was talking about when he ran for office in 2000?

 

I didn't vote for Bush and I have never liked any of his policies except for the consumption based tax systems that was proposed but never scheduled to replace the current loop-hole ridden tax system.

[lemosley01]

Tax revenue increased even though taxes were cut. Things that make you go hmmmmm....

 

The government is not in the business of owning land. Private parties will take better care of it than the government. Why should they hang on to land when they are not using it and it is just sitting there, most likely consuming tax dollars for 'care'.

 

And, finally, you can thank the recent Supreme Court decision reaffirming and granting more eminent domain power, sealed by the libs on the court, for allowing oil companies, and pretty much ANYONE who can generate more tax revenue with that land, the ability to take it.

 

Kelo v. New London: http://www.njslom.org/press_release_06-23-05.html

[Lustalbert]

I think somone is pissed at having to pay a little more to go hiking in a park.

[Science Abuse]

Tax revenue increased even though taxes were cut. Things that make you go hmmmmm....[/url]

They make up by cutting funding for inumerable programs, including those that the administration brags about, like medicare and no-child-left-behind. The available dollars are there because they've "timmed the fat".

 

Luetic, I'm not familiar with the Laffer Curve, and I'd be very interested in a more in-depth explaination. Those graphs realy don't tell us how it works. It does, however, point out a steady, heavy increase in the years following the cuts. As it sits, without any real explaination, this sentence makes absolutely no sence:

you don't get more money in the government pot to spend by increasing taxes. You get more by cutting taxes

Plus, read the heading of the Graph. That says nothing about what has come in, only what was spent. Furthermore, its only for 2 months of the fiscal year, last I checked there were still 12.

[Science Abuse]

I think somone is pissed at having to pay a little more to go hiking in a park.

Alot of people are. This is just one example that recently caught my attention.

 

Think of it like this: Would you be happy living in an place with no electricity, no cable, and no water, just so you wouldn't have to pay those bills? Our taxes, our parents taxes, or grandparents taxes, etc etc went into those lands to reserve them for our enjoyment. Now they're being taken from us and put on the open market. What do we get for it? Nothing at all. We pay about 45 cents a year less in taxes, and have to look at a stip mall or shitty housing development where our parks used to be. Is that what you and your fellow soldiers are fighting for, the right to make it easy for those with lots of money to make more at our expence?

[lemosley01]

They make up by cutting funding for inumerable programs, including those that the administration brags about, like medicare and no-child-left-behind. The available dollars are there because they've "timmed the fat".

 

I said tax REVENUE is up. That means they took in more taxes than before the tax cuts. It has nothing to do cutting funding to programs, which needs to be done anyway.

 

Like I said, the government is not in the business of owning land. The government is in a lot of businesses it shouldn't be in. Like pretty much anything that doesn't involve defense of the citizens.

[Guest Luetic]

The graph is Federal Receipts, not how much they spent. Look at the extremes, if the Federal tax was 100%, no one would work simply to give it all to the government, thus the Federal Receipt would be $0, this is the far right end of the curve. Also if the tax rate was 0% they would collect $0 this is the far left end of the cure. The optimal place is right in the middle, where taxes are minimized and federal receipts are maximized. The U.S. and most countries run well to the right of the middle. The top level tax rate in the U.S. has been as high as 90%! The Dems not only want to collect taxes but it is also their goal to eliminate wealth. It is really a socialist party. The way you get rid of the wealthy is to tax it away and redistribute it to the poor, thus creating a socialist situation without wealth/class stratification.

 

When you lower the tax rate, as has been done numerous times in the past with the same result, the amount of money that the Federal Government takes in goes UP! Business have more money to invest/expand/employ more workers who pay taxes and buy RCA's and new Chevys. Lower taxes=more government tax income. You have to remember that 80% of the federal income taxes are paid by the top 20% of the people. When you push that top 20% to the point that they feel that they are really being screwed (tax above 50%) they will make it their #1 priority to avoid paying taxes and the government revenue actually goes down. The solution is not, as dims would have you believe, to raise taxes.

[Science Abuse]

BusiWhen you push that top 20% to the point that they feel that they are really being screwed (tax above 50%) they will make it their #1 priority to avoid paying taxes....

They're doing that anyway

 

Business have more money to invest/expand/employ more workers who pay taxes and buy RCA's and new Chevys.

But they're employing mexicans and chinese, not Americans. They're being driven in Benz's an Rols. It's a decent theory, but as has been proven in the past, Supply-side reganomics doens't work. The rich didn't get rich by spending foolishly, they dont spend more when they can spend less.

 

And this administration is certainly NOT spending its money on defence. It's sending our troops out into the world to fight an enemy that cannot be killed. For everyone we kill, 2 more will take his place. It's a war to make it look like we're doing something,a ndour troops are paying the price. Bush has done more fo Al'quaida recruitment then Bin Laden ever could have hoped to do himself.

[Guest Luetic]

They're doing that anyway

 

And this administration is certainly NOT spending its money on defense. It's sending our troops out into the world to fight an enemy that cannot be killed. For everyone we kill, 2 more will take his place. It's a war to make it look like we're doing something,a ndour troops are paying the price. Bush has done more fo Al'quaida recruitment then Bin Laden ever could have hoped to do himself.

 

??? we spend more on defense now than ever! What the heck are you talking about??

 

The United States spends several times more on its military than any conceivable adversary, and together with its allies accounts for more than two-thirds of total worldwide defense spending," said a report by the Government Accountability Office, the auditing arm of Congress.

 

U.S. defense spending has surged since the late 1990s. U.S. defense budgets increased by more than 41 percent between 1999 and 2004, with most of the increase coming after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

 

The only other epochs when the United States spent as much on national defense in constant 2006 dollars was during World War II and the Korean War. Adjusted for inflation, defense spending now is far above the annual average of $366 billion spent during the Cold War-era when the United States faced the threat of nuclear annihilation or a Soviet invasion of Western Europe.

 

Not to hijack the thread, but, ummmm if we're not doing anything, then why haven't we been hit since 9/11/01? Because the terrorist don't want to? riiiiiiigggghhhht..

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

 

o.k. back to the original debate. Cutting taxes=government collects more revenue. You still haven't debated that.

[Tractor]

I"m very involved with the purchase and managment of state and national forests and especially in Ohio. I'm part of an organization right now thats about to make a large land purchase using money that comes 100% from government grants. I won't say much more about that since it could hamper our efforts. I will say however that your idea is wrong that "guys with money" will buy up all the land. Just last month an enviromental group bought up 150,000 acres of southeastern Ohio land. This group got the money through government grants and will be donating the land back to the national forest service very shortly. Its just a big stupid cycle thats been going on since about the depression with the formation of the national parks service. I'm an enviromentalist myself, but I'm not one of the hippy types that want to restrict access. Me and my organization are for 100% access by all recreationalists and outdoorsman.

 

Evan

[Lustalbert]

Alot of people are. This is just one example that recently caught my attention.

 

Think of it like this: Would you be happy living in an place with no electricity, no cable, and no water, just so you wouldn't have to pay those bills? Our taxes, our parents taxes, or grandparents taxes, etc etc went into those lands to reserve them for our enjoyment. Now they're being taken from us and put on the open market. What do we get for it? Nothing at all. We pay about 45 cents a year less in taxes, and have to look at a stip mall or shitty housing development where our parks used to be. Is that what you and your fellow soldiers are fighting for, the right to make it easy for those with lots of money to make more at our expence?

 

Captalisim. Deal with it or find a country that dosent have it and move there.

Wana get rich and become the asshole with the cash? Take a few risks and start a business, maybe it will get somewhere. All freedoms we have.

 

BTW, Soldiers fight for the freedoms we have. We arent politicians. There is an enemy out there that has a stated goal to make the US fall and to take the world and transform is into an extremist islamic state. They exsist, and so long as the contine to exsist, I will willingly leave my freedom and way of life here to go and help prevent them from making such plans sucsesfull. Dont make it out that we are fighting to help someone aquire land and develop it.

[Science Abuse]

??? we spend more on defense now than ever! What the heck are you talking about??.

Exactly, it's a shame its all being wasted. Our enemy is increasing in both resolve and numbers. And even though its harder to buy firtilizer and get on planes, it's easy as hell to just waltz into the country. Killing terrorists does nothing to stop terrorism.

 

Tractor, I think you have the highest ratio of post count to damned good info of anyone on this forum. But there are other parts of the country where things have already gone bad, despite this bill not being passed. There are instances where some one will buy up the land at the mouth of a canyon, thus controling all access to said canyon (to anyone other then rapelling nutjobs like myself). You pay to enter their "preserve", just so you can get access to the Forest Service land. It's not something often taken advantage of, but there is great potential for it to happen, especialy since they'll be available to outright privatization.

[lemosley01]

Exactly, it's a shame its all being wasted. Our enemy is increasing in both resolve and numbers. And even though its harder to buy firtilizer and get on planes, it's easy as hell to just waltz into the country. Killing terrorists does nothing to stop terrorism.

 

Ignoring them doesn't work either. Sticking your head in the sand (a la the 'European Way') will get you kicked in the teeth.

 

At least we're trying to do something, and it is more than 'killing terrorists'. Do you think the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq do nothing more than patrol and look for bad guys? I guess you would, since that is what the media wants us all to believe.

 

We have to educate these people as well. Ignorance allows them to be easy targets for the terrorists to indocrtrinate. When we show them we aren't what the bad guys say, maybe they'll change.

 

Or we could simply cut the leash on Israel, and let them deal with it. Of course, oil is pretty hard to get out of the ground when it's buried under hundreds of feet of glass, but just think of how cheap the silicon for microchips will be for years and years.

 

Tractor, I think you have the highest ratio of post count to damned good info of anyone on this forum. But there are other parts of the country where things have already gone bad, despite this bill not being passed. There are instances where some one will buy up the land at the mouth of a canyon, thus controling all access to said canyon (to anyone other then rapelling nutjobs like myself). You pay to enter their "preserve", just so you can get access to the Forest Service land. It's not something often taken advantage of, but there is great potential for it to happen, especialy since they'll be available to outright privatization.

 

Capitalism. Like Lustalbert said - deal with it or find another country. Maybe you should have watched that 20/20 that John Stossel did last week - it covered the very issue of public vs. private ownership.

[Tractor]

Tractor, I think you have the highest ratio of post count to damned good info of anyone on this forum. But there are other parts of the country where things have already gone bad, despite this bill not being passed. There are instances where some one will buy up the land at the mouth of a canyon, thus controling all access to said canyon (to anyone other then rapelling nutjobs like myself). You pay to enter their "preserve", just so you can get access to the Forest Service land. It's not something often taken advantage of, but there is great potential for it to happen, especialy since they'll be available to outright privatization.

 

Nice to know that I'm known to contribute to the forum when I make a post.

If your example of a private sector entity buying land and basically "land locking" a forest and then charging for access is something that actually happens then that forest service needs to take a better look at the law. I know for a fact that no one can "land lock" another persons property so that they cannot gain access via driving. Further more no entity can even block access to basic utilities like water, electric, and gas access. I've been through this as a southern ohio land owner and have been to court on this type of case. If a forest is allowing something like this to go on then they are willingly doing so.

 

You are correct in that I wouldn't have detailed knowledge of say the BLM territory in the southwest so there could be some really dumb laws out there premitting this type of activity. At the risk of sounding to biased towards a certain party. I'd say that if such laws exsist it probably wasn't Republicans looking out for the best interest of "big business" that created those laws and I'd even go so far to say that it was probably a court decision or something that some liberals dreamed up to allow there 501C3 orgs to buy bordering lands and then "land lock" forests to prevent development and/or access. This of course is just an example of how things could also have turned out and verly likely not true.

 

If anyone interested in more about the BLM and outdoor stuff you can always check out sierra club and even http://www.ohiotrails.org for ohio local stuff.

 

Evan

[Conesmasher]

The real question is, what is the point? What do you think can be fixed by changing the events that have been set into place. There are some very valid points in here, but I think this thread needs to come to a specific point and I am finding it very hard to observe that.

 

The Laffer curve is great, but the biggest problem is discovering which side we are on. I believe in Regeanomics, and I feel that it has brought some very good things into this country.

[Science Abuse]

Capitalism

No, its not. a far days work for a fair days pay is capitalism. The ability to own your home, and to buy and sell comodities is capitalism. Fucking over whoever you can to take whatever you can is not capitalism. There are many more Enron-caliber exec's out there, they're just smarter about it. The countries middle class is shrinking, and they damn sure aint making the move to upper class. Now more then ever, we see the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. That's not capitalism, that's an Aristocrasy, the very thing our nations revolutionists fought and died to remove from these lands. The needs of the many exceed the needs of the few, there is no nation without a "strong prolitariate". Supply-side fucks them, and rewards those who dont have a problem with fucking them.

 

Ignoring them doesn't work either.

Who the hell said Ignor them? Fighting terrorism is a job for Spec Ops and the CIA, not general infantry. In the days following Sept 11, Bush annonched to the world that we were coming to Afghanistan to "kick some ass". How strategicaly stupid was that? Did he expect bin laden and his cronies to sit in their tents and wait for it? He then invaded a muslin land and called our troops "Crusaders", how did he expect the region to take that? Whith open arms? There is a smart war on terror, then there is the dumb, ineffective and wastefull war on terror. One of these involves B52s, guess which?

 

Al, No one questioned what you personaly signed up for and why you fight. What I'm talking about is why your bosses are sending you over there. If you want to beleive your commander and chief, that's fine, it's your choice. And it's an admirable one, considering you're a soldier. But there are facts that are not up for debate:

-He falsified information to get you and you fellow troops over there.

-He had no plan for you after you smashed their pitiful army.

-He has repeatedly broken the law and bypassed the constitution you are fighting for.

There's also no arguing the work that you guuys are doing over there. Sure, he lied and falsified intel to get you over there to "Find WMD". But there are none, and the humanitarian effort that followed is beond commendable. Iraq should be a much better place when all is said and done...but when will that be? 5 years? 20 year? How many more will be killed for his default cause? The enemy is not getting weaker and is certainly not loosing any of its resolve. My problem is with your bosses, and their misuse of power.

 

The real question is, what is the point? What do you think can be fixed by changing the events that have been set into place.

And thats a big problem Conesmasher. We've been effectively tossed into the ocean, choosing not to swim is not an option. This thread has strayed waaaaay off topic though. That'd be something for another thread. This one is getting to be a lock candidate.

[Conesmasher]

Taxes are a very fubared type of situation right now. To tell you the truth, I haven't contributed to federal taxes for the last 8 years of my life, and that is saying alot, since I have only been in the work force for 8 years. Every year I get more back, than I pay in. I can't help that, I am just taking advantage of what is available to me. The biggest problem to me is the fact that the largest portion of the population is moving through their "highest" wages of their life aka baby boomers. All the while taxes are at their lowest ever. Instead of taking a look at how to fix the situation for years in the future, we are trying to stop leaks in the system now, which prevents us from having a broad outlook on what is to come. Social security is what really rattles my bones, because it has been abused, misused, and is supposed to be money that is payed into the system......but ultimately is used as a portion of the federal budget, instead of socking it away for retirees.

 

Capitalism is usually coined as a free enterprise system, and from my point of view, it is dog-eat-dog. Stupid people are the brunt of the joke, and people who have been out thought. Intellegence wins, whether you like it or not. If this guy can take $20 from you because he out thought you, he's going to do it, just as Sam Walton.

 

Globalism is either going to fuck Americans to hell, or bring them to be around average. What is happening is the playing field is being leveled, Americans no longer have the production advantage they had before, other countries are growing faster. As an American, I feel that it is best to understand where the world is heading, and prepare yourself for the opportunities that lie ahead. Don't focus on the shitty times that we all could face, rather the things that you can set in place now, to make your life a better place.

 

The biggest problems with Americans is the fact that #1 We can't even take care of ourselves. We are fucking pathetic(as a whole). We spend too much, we eat too much, and most of all we fuck ourselves too much. We are consumed by our own greed to reach a status in which we are greater than our neighbor. Where is John Kennedy spirit today, talking about, "What you can do for your country". Too many people want to know what the government is going to do for us. My main point is that too many people bitch about the fact that their country is doing them no good, when they are really doing no good for themselves, or their country.

 

National debt. Where else in the world can someone borrow "umpteen trillion dollars" and say that they have a 3% interest rate. Enough said.

 

I don't know a whole lot about parks and recreation, so I don't really have a comment. I wish I did appriciate what we have available and would take the time to realize what it means to Americans.

 

I think the LARGEST problem in America, is Wal-Mart. What a pathetic excuse for an American company. Wal-Mart is what happens when capitalism and communism hold hands, two people get fucked and smile in the process. When was the last time you bought something form Wal-Mart? If anyone ever gets a chance, catch a copy of the PBS special, "Is Wal-Mart good for America?" It is a very serious insight as to how Wal-Mart says that they are a good thing for America, yet are driving the business right out of our own backyard. Wal-Mart doesn't operate on supply-side, they operate on the demand-side. The whole publication goes on to show how the Chinese government and their monetary policy has basically screwed hundreds of possibly thousands of Americans who had 60-70k jobs, out of a job. But now they can greet at Wally world.

 

Follow this link, if you have some time.

http://www.columbusracing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22787

 

I just had to rant about something, I was feeling left out.

[Conesmasher]

If Bush lied........wouldn't he be impeached by now?

[Science Abuse]

If Bush lied........wouldn't he be impeached by now?

No. Republicans are much much better at this then Democrats. Were teh tables turned, and the Carl Rove machine was working against bush, he wouldn't have finished his first term. The dems just dont have the shit'together'ness to mount anything. Getting a unified left wing is like trying to shovel air into a heap.

 

Your other, more long winded post, is dead frickin on....accept this:

 

Capitalism is usually coined as a free enterprise system, and from my point of view, it is dog-eat-dog. Stupid people are the brunt of the joke, and people who have been out thought. Intellegence wins, whether you like it or not. If this guy can take $20 from you because he out thought you, he's going to do it, just as Sam Walton.

It's not that simple anymore. Enron exec's didnt raid people pensions because they "out thought" the old folk, they did it because the opportunity was there. Stealing some one's car because they left it unlocked, or cleaning out a house with an open door, is capitalism by your deffinition. We should not have to protect ourselves from other americans. If you're stupid enough to waste your money on a Tornado Air Intake for your cars, then fuck you, yer dumb. But When your company gets bought out, liquidated, and your job gets shipped overseas, that's not capitalism, thats prison rape.

 

You may lean to the other side of the fence, but at least we're both cinical, brother!