|
On September 09 2011 09:04 cskalias.pbe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 03:20 xDaunt wrote:
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
Obviously americans know that they have to reduce the deficit and restore "fiscal sanity". Not many wants to see their social security benefits cut 20 years down the road in either party due to an unpayable national debt. That said, most polls indicated that, across all americans, a combination of reduced spending and increased revenues was the desired blend. I'm not really sure where you got the conclusion (if this is indeed what you are saying) that this all had to be done via spending cuts,and only some polls suggested that the majority of republicans believed this. Now if you are suggesting that reducing the deficit should have been purely through a reduction in spending and no increase in revenue via taxes for the richest americans and closing of loopholes and other means, then fine, you can make that statement. That's your opinion and we can disagree. However, don't come off as saying that the majority of americans only wanted a reduction in spending because not only is it not true, but only reinforces the very point are you attempting to refute regarding the republican's ability to control the debt ceiling narrative (that their voting for 0 tax increases is just reflecting the beliefs of their constituents). sources other than my recollection of events: http://zogby.com/news/2011/07/11/ibope-zogby-national-debt-poll-majority-prefer-cuts-over-revenue-increases/ (i don't know how this source leans) http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/07/14/polls-voters-want-debt-limit-deal-to-cut-spending-and-raise-taxes/ (obviously leans conservative) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43813173/ns/politics/t/poll-americans-want-compromise-debt/ (leans liberal) http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/deficit-americans-prefer-spending-cuts-open-tax-hikes.aspx (supposedly neutral. These same pollsters are the ones that show record low obama approval rates)
This was hashed out fairly well in the US Debt Debate thread (or whatever it's called), so I don't really want to go into much detail here. But just hitting some of the high points briefly:
- Polls that ask whether individuals are for a "balanced approach" are meaningless. Both $100 spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases and $1 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases mean the same thing under that definition, yet there are obvious differences between the two.
- Given that we have a $15 trillion deficit, we're running 40+% annual budget deficit (~$1.4 trillion), we have a $15 trillion GDP, and military, social security, welfare, medicare, and debt service payments spending constitutes ~80% of the federal budget, balancing the budget necessarily will require a hugely disproportionate amount of spending cuts to tax increases. These are figures that are easy enough for "Joe American" to understand. Only republicans have put real spending cuts on the table, which is why they won the debt ceiling debate. Americans presently don't believe that democrats are serious about reducing the deficit.
- Social Security and medicare benefits are inevitably going to be cut for younger generations -- likely being subject to means testing. Americans are starting to understand this.
|
On September 09 2011 09:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 09:04 cskalias.pbe wrote:On September 09 2011 03:20 xDaunt wrote:
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
Obviously americans know that they have to reduce the deficit and restore "fiscal sanity". Not many wants to see their social security benefits cut 20 years down the road in either party due to an unpayable national debt. That said, most polls indicated that, across all americans, a combination of reduced spending and increased revenues was the desired blend. I'm not really sure where you got the conclusion (if this is indeed what you are saying) that this all had to be done via spending cuts,and only some polls suggested that the majority of republicans believed this. Now if you are suggesting that reducing the deficit should have been purely through a reduction in spending and no increase in revenue via taxes for the richest americans and closing of loopholes and other means, then fine, you can make that statement. That's your opinion and we can disagree. However, don't come off as saying that the majority of americans only wanted a reduction in spending because not only is it not true, but only reinforces the very point are you attempting to refute regarding the republican's ability to control the debt ceiling narrative (that their voting for 0 tax increases is just reflecting the beliefs of their constituents). sources other than my recollection of events: http://zogby.com/news/2011/07/11/ibope-zogby-national-debt-poll-majority-prefer-cuts-over-revenue-increases/ (i don't know how this source leans) http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/07/14/polls-voters-want-debt-limit-deal-to-cut-spending-and-raise-taxes/ (obviously leans conservative) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43813173/ns/politics/t/poll-americans-want-compromise-debt/ (leans liberal) http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/deficit-americans-prefer-spending-cuts-open-tax-hikes.aspx (supposedly neutral. These same pollsters are the ones that show record low obama approval rates) This was hashed out fairly well in the US Debt Debate thread (or whatever it's called), so I don't really want to go into much detail here. But just hitting some of the high points briefly: - Polls that ask whether individuals are for a "balanced approach" are meaningless. Both $100 spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases and $1 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases mean the same thing under that definition, yet there are obvious differences between the two. - Given that we have a $15 trillion deficit, we're running 40+% annual budget deficit (~$1.4 trillion), we have a $15 trillion GDP, and military, social security, welfare, medicare, and debt service payments spending constitutes ~80% of the federal budget, balancing the budget necessarily will require a hugely disproportionate amount of spending cuts to tax increases. These are figures that are easy enough for "Joe American" to understand. Only republicans have put real spending cuts on the table, which is why they won the debt ceiling debate. Americans presently don't believe that democrats are serious about reducing the deficit. - Social Security and medicare benefits are inevitably going to be cut for younger generations -- likely being subject to means testing. Americans are starting to understand this.
I am sorry, but you must not follow fair and balanced sources of information regarding your own god damn government.
I am even tempted to call you a fucking idiot.
If you think that holding the world at hostage for an "debt ceiling" increase (which has been approved 87 times in previous history) is "winning" the debate you sir are retarded.
What the hell do you think would happen if the US defaulted? Jesus Christ.
The very fact that most actual republicans would easily approve such an increase except for the novice Tea Party Ass hats that have no understanding of how your government system works, is evidence of your total asshatery.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 09 2011 09:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 09:04 cskalias.pbe wrote:On September 09 2011 03:20 xDaunt wrote:
Let's look at the debt ceiling debate. The narrative that I have seen coming from liberals/democrats in this thread is that republicans are sooooo good at messaging and the democrats are so inept that the republicans got away with holding a gun to the head of the country during the standoff and even gained more support following the crisis. Just think about how ridiculous that sounds. Here's a simpler explanation: a majority of Americans are fed up with out of control federal spending, understand that a default will come anyway if spending cuts are enacts, and want to reinstate a sense of fiscal sanity back in Washington. In other words, a majority of Americans generally agreed with the republican position.
Obviously americans know that they have to reduce the deficit and restore "fiscal sanity". Not many wants to see their social security benefits cut 20 years down the road in either party due to an unpayable national debt. That said, most polls indicated that, across all americans, a combination of reduced spending and increased revenues was the desired blend. I'm not really sure where you got the conclusion (if this is indeed what you are saying) that this all had to be done via spending cuts,and only some polls suggested that the majority of republicans believed this. Now if you are suggesting that reducing the deficit should have been purely through a reduction in spending and no increase in revenue via taxes for the richest americans and closing of loopholes and other means, then fine, you can make that statement. That's your opinion and we can disagree. However, don't come off as saying that the majority of americans only wanted a reduction in spending because not only is it not true, but only reinforces the very point are you attempting to refute regarding the republican's ability to control the debt ceiling narrative (that their voting for 0 tax increases is just reflecting the beliefs of their constituents). sources other than my recollection of events: http://zogby.com/news/2011/07/11/ibope-zogby-national-debt-poll-majority-prefer-cuts-over-revenue-increases/ (i don't know how this source leans) http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/07/14/polls-voters-want-debt-limit-deal-to-cut-spending-and-raise-taxes/ (obviously leans conservative) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43813173/ns/politics/t/poll-americans-want-compromise-debt/ (leans liberal) http://www.gallup.com/poll/148472/deficit-americans-prefer-spending-cuts-open-tax-hikes.aspx (supposedly neutral. These same pollsters are the ones that show record low obama approval rates) This was hashed out fairly well in the US Debt Debate thread (or whatever it's called), so I don't really want to go into much detail here. But just hitting some of the high points briefly: - Polls that ask whether individuals are for a "balanced approach" are meaningless. Both $100 spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases and $1 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases mean the same thing under that definition, yet there are obvious differences between the two.
They're not meaningless because they show that a majority of US citizens DISAGREED WITH THE REPUBLICANS. Can you get this through your head? The Republicans rejected tax increases. The majority of the people wanted tax increases.
On September 09 2011 09:42 xDaunt wrote:- Given that we have a $15 trillion deficit, we're running 40+% annual budget deficit (~$1.4 trillion), we have a $15 trillion GDP, and military, social security, welfare, medicare, and debt service payments spending constitutes ~80% of the federal budget, balancing the budget necessarily will require a hugely disproportionate amount of spending cuts to tax increases.
"Hugely" means nothing. What figure can you come up with? I've seen many conservative economists put forward numbers like 3 dollars in cuts to 1 dollar in increases or 4 dollars in cuts to 1 dollar in increases. Obama proposed a 3 dollars in cuts to 1 dollar in increases plan. Again, even conservative economists and the American people supported this approach.
On September 09 2011 09:42 xDaunt wrote:Only republicans have put real spending cuts on the table
False, like I just pointed out.
On September 09 2011 09:42 xDaunt wrote:which is why they won the debt ceiling debate
False, they "won" the fight because they were more willing to sacrifice the economy to get what they wanted. And they certainly did not win the debate.
On September 09 2011 09:42 xDaunt wrote:Americans presently don't believe that democrats are serious about reducing the deficit.
You have a tendency to believe your views are somehow the views of the American people. Do you have any numbers to back up what you just said?
|
On September 09 2011 09:42 xDaunt wrote:
- Polls that ask whether individuals are for a "balanced approach" are meaningless. Both $100 spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases and $1 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases mean the same thing under that definition, yet there are obvious differences between the two.
- Given that we have a $15 trillion deficit, we're running 40+% annual budget deficit (~$1.4 trillion), we have a $15 trillion GDP, and military, social security, welfare, medicare, and debt service payments spending constitutes ~80% of the federal budget, balancing the budget necessarily will require a hugely disproportionate amount of spending cuts to tax increases. These are figures that are easy enough for "Joe American" to understand. Only republicans have put real spending cuts on the table, which is why they won the debt ceiling debate. Americans presently don't believe that democrats are serious about reducing the deficit.
- Social Security and medicare benefits are inevitably going to be cut for younger generations -- likely being subject to means testing. Americans are starting to understand this.
Kind of an aside but wanted to address your point:
Means testing is a cost cutting measure proposed in health care reform that republicans actually denounced as being part of the "death panels" (they will take away your 100k cancer treatment that will add 6 months to your life!).
Regarding polls, I don't really see how you are refuting my point. Regardless of whether the poll can mean 100 spending cuts per 1 unit of tax increases or 1 to 1, the republicans in congress made it clear that the ONLY acceptable ratio is 0 unit of tax increases. Can you honestly believe that the majority of Americans (or even the majority of republicans!!) prefer 0 unit of tax increases per X unit of spending cut? Yet that is the message that republicans (or at least their leadership) would have you believe.
It's not clear to me how, say X trillion in deficit reduction via cutting costs only is somehow more "serious" than X trillion in deficit reduction via cutting costs and increasing taxes on the the wealthier americans and closing tap loopholes for the absolutely richest americans.
You could argue that "taxes are too damn high! that's why it has to all be through cuts!" But what is the right level, and how could anyone pretend to know? Overall taxation is america is among the lowest in the OECD. Why aren't you advocating 10 trillion in spending cuts instead of 5? Or 12 trillion? It's just not clear to me how having a more extreme position makes you "serious". That's like saying we should triple prison sentences to be serious about crime, or unilaterally invading a terrorist hideouts in northern Pakistan to be serious about defense. Policy that pleases your constituents without thinking of the rest of america is not serious governance.
I'm not saying i know what the right level of taxes is, or the right level of entitlements, or the right size of government. These are really really really hard questions that no civilization has been able to completely agree on, much less find the right answer. I just know if i have to pay taxes, I want it to be spent as efficiently as possible to the benefit of all americans (a metric for which is a huge debate in and of itself!), as I'm sure we all do. But having that discussion can't be reasonably achieved through jingoism and demagoguery which so much of the republican party have been utilizing almost as a matter of policy.
|
We are collecting 14-15% of GDP in taxes.
We are spending 24-25% of GDP.
Now. Looking at history...there is a limit of around 19% GDP that the US Government can take in...no matter what the tax rates are.
So.
15 Trillion * 19% GDP = 2.85 Trillion.
You can raise taxes until you get your 2.85T in revenues, and whatever spending is beyond that... will (must) be eventually reduced down to that level.
That is where the ratio of proposed Tax Increases to Spending Cuts comes from.
Now I don't really care what the 19%~$2.85T is spent on. Spend it on aircraft carriers or foodtamps.
What I'm saying is that there is a line in the sand there at 19% of GDP that mathematically you can not cross (for long).
|
On September 09 2011 11:39 cskalias.pbe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 09:42 xDaunt wrote:
- Polls that ask whether individuals are for a "balanced approach" are meaningless. Both $100 spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases and $1 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases mean the same thing under that definition, yet there are obvious differences between the two.
- Given that we have a $15 trillion deficit, we're running 40+% annual budget deficit (~$1.4 trillion), we have a $15 trillion GDP, and military, social security, welfare, medicare, and debt service payments spending constitutes ~80% of the federal budget, balancing the budget necessarily will require a hugely disproportionate amount of spending cuts to tax increases. These are figures that are easy enough for "Joe American" to understand. Only republicans have put real spending cuts on the table, which is why they won the debt ceiling debate. Americans presently don't believe that democrats are serious about reducing the deficit.
- Social Security and medicare benefits are inevitably going to be cut for younger generations -- likely being subject to means testing. Americans are starting to understand this. Kind of an aside but wanted to address your point: Means testing is a cost cutting measure proposed in health care reform that republicans actually denounced as being part of the "death panels" (they will take away your 100k cancer treatment that will add 6 months to your life!).
I think we're talking about two different things. "Death panels" (as coined by Palin) refer specifically to the administrative bodies that will determine how care will be rationed to those covered under the medical insurance program. Though I doubt that there will be "death panels" that determine whether individuals should be treated on a case by case basis, at the very least, there will be "death panels" that determine which conditions will receive what types of treatment. Look at how Oregon's Medicaid program works for an example of what this might look like. The term "death panel" may be silly, but it describes a real and necessary component of a government-provided health care system.
When people talk about "means testing," what they generally refer to is the decision to make access to a government program contingent upon material (ie, Rich people likely will not have access to Medicare and Social Security in the future because those programs will be means tested)
On September 09 2011 11:39 cskalias.pbe wrote:
Regarding polls, I don't really see how you are refuting my point. Regardless of whether the poll can mean 100 spending cuts per 1 unit of tax increases or 1 to 1, the republicans in congress made it clear that the ONLY acceptable ratio is 0 unit of tax increases. Can you honestly believe that the majority of Americans (or even the majority of republicans!!) prefer 0 unit of tax increases per X unit of spending cut? Yet that is the message that republicans (or at least their leadership) would have you believe.
Quite frankly, the republicans are basically right. We have a spending a problem. Not a revenue problem. Besides, raising taxes while the economy is weak is generally accepted as being a bad idea (conversely, only Keynsians believe that cutting spending during a recession is necessarily a bad idea). Refusing to publicly accept any deal that includes any tax increases was not only politically smart but it's also not necessarily a bad policy. That said, republicans were prepared to compromise on the issue during the "grand bargain" negotiations. If I remember correctly, the last proposal on the table from republicans was something in the neighborhood of $4 trillion in spending cuts and $800 trillion in new revenues over 10 years.
On September 09 2011 11:39 cskalias.pbe wrote:
It's not clear to me how, say X trillion in deficit reduction via cutting costs only is somehow more "serious" than X trillion in deficit reduction via cutting costs and increasing taxes on the the wealthier americans and closing tap loopholes for the absolutely richest americans.
This one's easy to explain. We simply can't raise taxes enough to cover the current budget deficit. The numbers say it all. We have $1.4 trillion+ annual budget deficits and a $15 trillion GDP. We'd have to tax the entire economy at least an additional 10% (keep in mind that the tax increase would harm the private sector, creating a downward pressure on tax revenues), which is a bad idea for very obvious reasons. Stated another way, we can't tax the wealthy enough and close enough loopholes to make up the current budget deficits.
On September 09 2011 11:39 cskalias.pbe wrote:
You could argue that "taxes are too damn high! that's why it has to all be through cuts!" But what is the right level, and how could anyone pretend to know? Overall taxation is america is among the lowest in the OECD. Why aren't you advocating 10 trillion in spending cuts instead of 5? Or 12 trillion? It's just not clear to me how having a more extreme position makes you "serious". That's like saying we should triple prison sentences to be serious about crime, or unilaterally invading a terrorist hideouts in northern Pakistan to be serious about defense. Policy that pleases your constituents without thinking of the rest of america is not serious governance.
I don't really want to derail this thread and turn it into argument about trickle down economics, but that's the obvious answer to the questions that you are posing here. As a general subscriber to trickle down economic theory, I believe that low tax policies promote an economic environment that fosters economic opportunity and prosperity for everyone. Leave the money in the private sector for efficient distribution and investment.
On September 09 2011 11:39 cskalias.pbe wrote:
I'm not saying i know what the right level of taxes is, or the right level of entitlements, or the right size of government. These are really really really hard questions that no civilization has been able to completely agree on, much less find the right answer. I just know if i have to pay taxes, I want it to be spent as efficiently as possible to the benefit of all americans (a metric for which is a huge debate in and of itself!), as I'm sure we all do. But having that discussion can't be reasonably achieved through jingoism and demagoguery which so much of the republican party have been utilizing almost as a matter of policy.
And that's the rub with the federal government. It's not spending money efficiently right now. Why give it more of our money without making the custodians of our funds accountable to us? Washington has been so flush with money that it isn't even trying to be efficient. It's time for the feds to tighten their belts.
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14841746
Referring back to the OP article, I found it more than a little amusing to see that Obama has put forward a new bill, straight-forwardly titled the American Jobs Act. Maybe he read this article too. Also a strong opening move for the election next year - if the Republicans support it, he created jobs. If they fight it, they are stopping Americans get jobs. Revenge for them trying to make the debt ceiling an election issue?
|
On September 09 2011 12:39 Sanctimonius wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14841746Referring back to the OP article, I found it more than a little amusing to see that Obama has put forward a new bill, straight-forwardly titled the American Jobs Act. Maybe he read this article too. Also a strong opening move for the election next year - if the Republicans support it, he created jobs. If they fight it, they are stopping Americans get jobs. Revenge for them trying to make the debt ceiling an election issue?
I have the feeling that Republicans will mire the whole process to the point where the proposal becomes a water-down and half-assed attempt to put forth something meaningful. The fallout will be Republicans saying "look at the american jobs act and how it failed. Boo Obama" (and their base will eat it up)... Democrats will not have the spine to actually follow through and in turn will alienate more of their base.
Call me a pessimist.
|
On September 09 2011 11:55 RCMDVA wrote:
We are collecting 14-15% of GDP in taxes.
We are spending 24-25% of GDP.
Now. Looking at history...there is a limit of around 19% GDP that the US Government can take in...no matter what the tax rates are.
So.
15 Trillion * 19% GDP = 2.85 Trillion.
You can raise taxes until you get your 2.85T in revenues, and whatever spending is beyond that... will (must) be eventually reduced down to that level.
That is where the ratio of proposed Tax Increases to Spending Cuts comes from.
Now I don't really care what the 19%~$2.85T is spent on. Spend it on aircraft carriers or foodtamps.
What I'm saying is that there is a line in the sand there at 19% of GDP that mathematically you can not cross (for long).
We have not crossed 19% of GDP because it has never been tried. Other countries do it easily.
|
On September 09 2011 12:08 xDaunt wrote:
Quite frankly, the republicans are basically right. We have a spending a problem. Not a revenue problem. Besides, raising taxes while the economy is weak is generally accepted as being a bad idea (conversely, only Keynsians believe that cutting spending during a recession is necessarily a bad idea). Refusing to publicly accept any deal that includes any tax increases was not only politically smart but it's also not necessarily a bad policy. That said, republicans were prepared to compromise on the issue during the "grand bargain" negotiations. If I remember correctly, the last proposal on the table from republicans was something in the neighborhood of $4 trillion in spending cuts and $800 trillion in new revenues over 10 years.
This one's easy to explain. We simply can't raise taxes enough to cover the current budget deficit. The numbers say it all. We have $1.4 trillion+ annual budget deficits and a $15 trillion GDP. We'd have to tax the entire economy at least an additional 10% (keep in mind that the tax increase would harm the private sector, creating a downward pressure on tax revenues), which is a bad idea for very obvious reasons. Stated another way, we can't tax the wealthy enough and close enough loopholes to make up the current budget deficits.
I don't really want to derail this thread and turn it into argument about trickle down economics, but that's the obvious answer to the questions that you are posing here. As a general subscriber to trickle down economic theory, I believe that low tax policies promote an economic environment that fosters economic opportunity and prosperity for everyone. Leave the money in the private sector for efficient distribution and investment.
And that's the rub with the federal government. It's not spending money efficiently right now. Why give it more of our money without making the custodians of our funds accountable to us? Washington has been so flush with money that it isn't even trying to be efficient. It's time for the feds to tighten their belts.
I butchered your post because because I'm much better at TvZ than teamliquid quoting syntax, and I agree we appear to be talking about completely different things regarding means testing.
I feel we are turning into a policy argument, rather than an argument on the means with which different politicians achieve their goals (although I am personally curious as to the republican proposal for new revenues, as I have not heard or read anything to that effect).
A few quacks will always exist in every party, but the entire republican party is becoming so hostile to intellectualism that it is preventing any nuanced debate of the issues. When party LEADERSHIP does not speak out that, for example, Obama was born in the US because they are afraid of making their constituents angry, that indicates a serious problem with our the politicians and constituents in the republican Party. I don't want to say we shouldn't debate, but we shouldn't perpetuate the ignorance of constituents (by not telling them how wrong they are) in order to gain their favor! (I feel similarly about creationism). The entire party is being pulled by the extremists and republicans that I actually admire (whether i agree with their policy or not) are lost in the fray.
|
We have not crossed 19% of GDP because it has never been tried. Other countries do it easily.
The 19% number is Federal only. Throw in State/City/County taxes and you get around the mid 30% range. A little less than Europe which are around 40%.
|
On September 09 2011 14:02 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +
We have not crossed 19% of GDP because it has never been tried. Other countries do it easily.
The 19% number is Federal only. Throw in State/City/County taxes and you get around the mid 30% range. A little less than Europe which are around 40%.
And of course that depends on where you are in Europe. We're not a homogenous society here, we don't all follow the same laws and tax codes. In the UK taxes can go up to around 50% of earnings over a certain level, for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe
|
On September 09 2011 12:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 11:39 cskalias.pbe wrote:On September 09 2011 09:42 xDaunt wrote:
- Polls that ask whether individuals are for a "balanced approach" are meaningless. Both $100 spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases and $1 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increases mean the same thing under that definition, yet there are obvious differences between the two.
- Given that we have a $15 trillion deficit, we're running 40+% annual budget deficit (~$1.4 trillion), we have a $15 trillion GDP, and military, social security, welfare, medicare, and debt service payments spending constitutes ~80% of the federal budget, balancing the budget necessarily will require a hugely disproportionate amount of spending cuts to tax increases. These are figures that are easy enough for "Joe American" to understand. Only republicans have put real spending cuts on the table, which is why they won the debt ceiling debate. Americans presently don't believe that democrats are serious about reducing the deficit.
- Social Security and medicare benefits are inevitably going to be cut for younger generations -- likely being subject to means testing. Americans are starting to understand this. Kind of an aside but wanted to address your point: Means testing is a cost cutting measure proposed in health care reform that republicans actually denounced as being part of the "death panels" (they will take away your 100k cancer treatment that will add 6 months to your life!). I think we're talking about two different things. "Death panels" (as coined by Palin) refer specifically to the administrative bodies that will determine how care will be rationed to those covered under the medical insurance program. Though I doubt that there will be "death panels" that determine whether individuals should be treated on a case by case basis, at the very least, there will be "death panels" that determine which conditions will receive what types of treatment. Look at how Oregon's Medicaid program works for an example of what this might look like. The term "death panel" may be silly, but it describes a real and necessary component of a government-provided health care system.
I see that you have completely stopped replying to any of my posts, perhaps because it's a bit inconvenient to reply to someone who has just proved your wrong. No matter, I'll keep debunking your laughable talking points.
First of all, the term "death panel" is ridiculous and nothing more than a scare tactic, that's all there is to it. Don't try to excuse it, you would be outraged the roles were reversed and the Democrats were the ones using the term.
On September 09 2011 12:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 11:39 cskalias.pbe wrote:
Regarding polls, I don't really see how you are refuting my point. Regardless of whether the poll can mean 100 spending cuts per 1 unit of tax increases or 1 to 1, the republicans in congress made it clear that the ONLY acceptable ratio is 0 unit of tax increases. Can you honestly believe that the majority of Americans (or even the majority of republicans!!) prefer 0 unit of tax increases per X unit of spending cut? Yet that is the message that republicans (or at least their leadership) would have you believe. Quite frankly, the republicans are basically right. We have a spending a problem. Not a revenue problem.
False. Pretty much every economist on the spectrum agrees that there is a revenue problem, including Reagan's budget director and plenty of economists who worked for Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. What you say is even false on two levels, since government spending is most welcome to get out of bad economic times. Anyway, here's a table that completely debunks your claim that we don't have a revenue problem: it is a "summary of receipts, outlays, and surpluses or deficits as percentages of GDP". We are at 14.9% for both 2009 and 2010, and you have to go back to 1950 to find a figure as low. You are wrong.
On September 09 2011 12:08 xDaunt wrote:
Besides, raising taxes while the economy is weak is generally accepted as being a bad idea (conversely, only Keynsians believe that cutting spending during a recession is necessarily a bad idea).
False, it's certainly not only Keynesians that believe this. Have you ever studied economics? Even Friedman was not completely against spending, he simply pointed out that the Keynesian multiplier does not work as predicted in every situation. Besides, the kind of spending advertised by Obama in his latest speech is spending that would be necessary anyway and that supporters of Friedman would certainly not oppose, namely spending to improve infrastructure and education. What's more, these days Republicans are even against the monetary policy of the Fed (see Perry and Romney's comments regarding Bernanke), meaning that they've completely turned their backs to serious economists across the spectrum. I'd like to add that the CBO and other budget offices have showed that raising taxes on the wealthiest would not hurt the economy and would considerably help in reducing the deficit, allowing programs that are VITAL to the economy to be maintained (in short: it's a better economic policy to raise taxes on the wealthy and save those programs than not raise taxes on the wealthy and slash those programs, the latter being what the Republicans support). Again, you are wrong.
On September 09 2011 12:08 xDaunt wrote:
Refusing to publicly accept any deal that includes any tax increases was not only politically smart but it's also not necessarily a bad policy.
False, it was terrible policy, like I just pointed out and like every serious economist has argued.
On September 09 2011 12:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 11:39 cskalias.pbe wrote:
It's not clear to me how, say X trillion in deficit reduction via cutting costs only is somehow more "serious" than X trillion in deficit reduction via cutting costs and increasing taxes on the the wealthier americans and closing tap loopholes for the absolutely richest americans. This one's easy to explain. We simply can't raise taxes enough to cover the current budget deficit. The numbers say it all. We have $1.4 trillion+ annual budget deficits and a $15 trillion GDP. We'd have to tax the entire economy at least an additional 10% (keep in mind that the tax increase would harm the private sector, creating a downward pressure on tax revenues), which is a bad idea for very obvious reasons. Stated another way, we can't tax the wealthy enough and close enough loopholes to make up the current budget deficits.
Nobody said the entire deficit would be covered by raising taxes, so nice try with your strawman. The point is that raising taxes on the wealthy would still contribute considerably. This segment from the Daily Show is pretty good to understand why your talking point is bs.
On September 09 2011 12:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 11:39 cskalias.pbe wrote:
You could argue that "taxes are too damn high! that's why it has to all be through cuts!" But what is the right level, and how could anyone pretend to know? Overall taxation is america is among the lowest in the OECD. Why aren't you advocating 10 trillion in spending cuts instead of 5? Or 12 trillion? It's just not clear to me how having a more extreme position makes you "serious". That's like saying we should triple prison sentences to be serious about crime, or unilaterally invading a terrorist hideouts in northern Pakistan to be serious about defense. Policy that pleases your constituents without thinking of the rest of america is not serious governance. I don't really want to derail this thread and turn it into argument about trickle down economics, but that's the obvious answer to the questions that you are posing here. As a general subscriber to trickle down economic theory, I believe that low tax policies promote an economic environment that fosters economic opportunity and prosperity for everyone. Leave the money in the private sector for efficient distribution and investment.
Out of curiosity, have you ever read a scientific article defending or critical of "trickle down economic theory" (I suppose you're referring to supply-side economics)? I think I know the answer. Again, you don't have the slightest clue about what you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
