Raise Taxes or Granny Gets It

[BigRob]

I believe the CBO is talking about the very short term. . .like, it wouldn't fix the deficit THIS YEAR no matter how high the taxes would go up THIS YEAR.

If the taxes on the top 2% were raised UNTIL the deficit was resolved to a level that would be acceptable (let's say, 39% to 45%, for a period of 10 or 15 years), WHILE, at the same time, the entitlement budget was controlled to go down every year by let's say 5%, I believe their assessment would be very different.

If you have data showing differently, I'd love to see it.

These are some bold assumptions you are making. 5% cuts in entitlement programs every year is unlikely...those programs are only growing. And "acceptable" can mean very different things to different people.

That said, you also comment that the deficit would just be brought to a level that was acceptable. The presence of the deficit suggests that the budget would still remain unbalanced.

 

[ProudLefty]

These are some bold assumptions you are making. 5% cuts in entitlement programs every year is unlikely...those programs are only growing. And "acceptable" can mean very different things to different people.

That said, you also comment that the deficit would just be brought to a level that was acceptable. The presence of the deficit suggests that the budget would still remain unbalanced.

Entitlement programs don't just grow. Medicare Part D, the Bush gift to the drug industry, is a budget buster, but that can be remedied if an effort is made. Getting people back to work will replenish Unemployment Insurance coffers and reduce the demand for all other safety programs, including food stamps and Medicaid.

Lest we forget, it wasn't all that long ago that our budget was nearly in balance, and would have been in balance if GW had not gone berserk with policies that have destroyed our financial security.

If we could do it in 1999 we can do it in 2011. We just need some common sense. By Republican standards, Reagan is the God of Tax Rates, right? So lets just use his rates as a starting place? That would be a HUGE chunk of the solution.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Entitlement programs don't just grow. Medicare Part D, the Bush gift to the drug industry, is a budget buster, but that can be remedied if an effort is made. Getting people back to work will replenish Unemployment Insurance coffers and reduce the demand for all other safety programs, including food stamps and Medicaid.

Lest we forget, it wasn't all that long ago that our budget was nearly in balance, and would have been in balance if GW had not gone berserk with policies that have destroyed our financial security.

If we could do it in 1999 we can do it in 2011. We just need some common sense. By Republican standards, Reagan is the God of Tax Rates, right? So lets just use his rates as a starting place? That would be a HUGE chunk of the solution.

What is your plan to "get people back to work"?

 

[ProudLefty]

What is your plan to "get people back to work"?

There are a number of good plans to get people back to work.

The idea that the problem is a lack of confidence is fakery. If there is demand there will be jobs. If there is not demand there will not be jobs.

It makes no difference what business owners are "feeling." No owner builds inventory in response to his "feelings"; he builds inventory because he has firm purchase orders.

This screaming and wailing from the Republicans about debt is not about saving America, it is about destroying America to be sure that "President Obama is a one-term president." Thats the whole game. All of it.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

There are a number of good plans to get people back to work.

The idea that the problem is a lack of confidence is fakery. If there is demand there will be jobs. If there is not demand there will not be jobs.

It makes no difference what business owners are "feeling." No owner builds inventory in response to his "feelings"; he builds inventory because he has firm purchase orders.

This screaming and wailing from the Republicans about debt is not about saving America, it is about destroying America to be sure that "President Obama is a one-term president." Thats the whole game. All of it.

That didn't really answer my question. What are your ideas for getting people to back?

I agree incidentally that the problem is not a lack of confidence. That's Keynesian economic shamanism. But I didn't ask what the plan wasn't.

 

[Openmind]

How are you going to raise taxes on the top 2%? The Progressive income tax barely touches people in the top 2%, if it touches them at all. Their income is primarily derived from investments and therefore only subject to the flat 15% rate of the capital gains tax. Why isn't the capital gains tax Progressive?

That is an excellent point. And I do believe that investment income should be taxed as high or higher than work income!

This would level the playing field significantly!

 

[ProudLefty]

All of the plans that will work are the same plans that have always worked. Build needed infrastructure now while it is cheaper than it ever will be again, and get the busted and worn out stuff fixed for another 20 years. Get America positioned to be competitive in the 21st century, not for the middle of the 20th century.

Will it cost money? It sure will. But it will cost less now than it ever will again.

Can America afford it? The better question is: Can America NOT afford it? Can we afford to be a slipping first-tier nation, headed to second tier?

Please, do not lecture me with "we can't afford it" when the real thing we can't afford is to have a leaky roof and broken windows which will destroy the very guts of our house.

Please don't lecture me about we can't afford it because the Koch brothers, Wall Street, and the hedge fund managers are such hard workers and those poor dears really deserve to be allowed to loot what remains of America.

 

[BigRob]

Entitlement programs don't just grow. Medicare Part D, the Bush gift to the drug industry, is a budget buster, but that can be remedied if an effort is made. Getting people back to work will replenish Unemployment Insurance coffers and reduce the demand for all other safety programs, including food stamps and Medicaid.

Entitlements do in fact grow, as more people retire and start using them.

Lest we forget, it wasn't all that long ago that our budget was nearly in balance, and would have been in balance if GW had not gone berserk with policies that have destroyed our financial security.

...what policies are those specifically?

If we could do it in 1999 we can do it in 2011. We just need some common sense. By Republican standards, Reagan is the God of Tax Rates, right? So lets just use his rates as a starting place? That would be a HUGE chunk of the solution.

In your opinion raising marginal rates by 20% (basically) would have no impact on the economy and be beneficial for us all?

It is entirely absurd to argue that "the economy was good with taxes at these rates, therefore tax rates made the economy good."

 

[BigRob]

That is an excellent point. And I do believe that investment income should be taxed as high or higher than work income!

This would level the playing field significantly!

Why do you want to level the playing field by increasing misery for everyone? Why not "level the playing field" with cuts for everyone?

 

[BigRob]

All of the plans that will work are the same plans that have always worked. Build needed infrastructure now while it is cheaper than it ever will be again, and get the busted and worn out stuff fixed for another 20 years. Get America positioned to be competitive in the 21st century, not for the middle of the 20th century.

Will it cost money? It sure will. But it will cost less now than it ever will again.

Can America afford it? The better question is: Can America NOT afford it? Can we afford to be a slipping first-tier nation, headed to second tier?

Please, do not lecture me with "we can't afford it" when the real thing we can't afford is to have a leaky roof and broken windows which will destroy the very guts of our house.

Please don't lecture me about we can't afford it because the Koch brothers, Wall Street, and the hedge fund managers are such hard workers and those poor dears really deserve to be allowed to loot what remains of America.

At some point reality does set in, and we realize we do not have unlimited money.

If I go spend $10 billion buying various things I could be "well positioned" for the next century...the problem is I don't have $10 billion...and the century after that, when the bill comes due, I am screwed.

 

[Openmind]

At some point reality does set in, and we realize we do not have unlimited money.

If I go spend $10 billion buying various things I could be "well positioned" for the next century...the problem is I don't have $10 billion...and the century after that, when the bill comes due, I am screwed.

See, I like what you just said: "we realize we do not have unlimited money."

Now that we agree that money is finite. . .
Can you see my point about the fact that, the wealthy getting wealthier at the expense of the middle class and the poor is not sustainable for ANYONE?

Since money is finite. . .any time money accumulates in the top 2% of the population, that money is coming from the bottom 98%. . .mostly the bottom 50% though!

And you still want the "deficit reduction" and "budget balancing" to be done ONLY on the back of the bottom 50%, the elderly, the veterans, and the disable?

Can't you see that, somehow, part of that "great plan" must include some "reduction in wealth" through "additional taxing" among those people who hold an ever increasing amount of the wealth?

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

All of the plans that will work are the same plans that have always worked. Build needed infrastructure now while it is cheaper than it ever will be again, and get the busted and worn out stuff fixed for another 20 years. Get America positioned to be competitive in the 21st century, not for the middle of the 20th century.

Will it cost money? It sure will. But it will cost less now than it ever will again.

Can America afford it? The better question is: Can America NOT afford it? Can we afford to be a slipping first-tier nation, headed to second tier?

Please, do not lecture me with "we can't afford it" when the real thing we can't afford is to have a leaky roof and broken windows which will destroy the very guts of our house.

Please don't lecture me about we can't afford it because the Koch brothers, Wall Street, and the hedge fund managers are such hard workers and those poor dears really deserve to be allowed to loot what remains of America.

First of all, please stop lecturing me about not lecturing you. You obviously don't know anything about my politics, so don't presume to know what my policy positions are.

Second, infrastructure development made sense in the 1930s when America was a rural, roadless waste largely without electricity and construction was still mostly unmechanized. Developing the nation's infrastructure was, of necessity, a decades-spanning process requiring tremendous amounts of manual labor. That's not the case today, when that infrastructure is already mostly in place and mechanization has made large numbers of workers unnecessary. (At any rate, WW2 probably did more to end the Depression than did the New Deal; it turns out burning all the excess production capacity and killing unemployed workers tends to maximize employment and production efficiency).

When your house springs a leak, you hire a repairman and, a few hours later, he's done. How is this a model for putting the lion's share of the 20%+ of our unemployed workforce back to work on a relatively permanent basis?

And at any rate, how is taxing people for jobs we're paying them to do in the first place going to reduce the deficit?

 

[Openmind]

First of all, please stop lecturing me about not lecturing you. You obviously don't know anything about my politics, so don't presume to know what my policy positions are.

Second, infrastructure development made sense in the 1930s when America was a rural, roadless waste largely without electricity and construction was still mostly unmechanized. Developing the nation's infrastructure was, of necessity, a decades-spanning process requiring tremendous amounts of manual labor. That's not the case today, when that infrastructure is already mostly in place and mechanization has made large numbers of workers unnecessary. (At any rate, WW2 probably did more to end the Depression than did the New Deal; it turns out burning all the excess production capacity and killing unemployed workers tends to maximize employment and production efficiency).

When your house springs a leak, you hire a repairman and, a few hours later, he's done. How is this a model for putting the lion's share of the 20%+ of our unemployed workforce back to work on a relatively permanent basis?

And at any rate, how is taxing people for jobs we're paying them to do in the first place going to reduce the deficit?

Are you really saying that spending on infrastructure in this country is no longer necessary? or not a priority?

Have you travelled abroad lately?

Have you had a chance to compare OUR infrastructure here at home and the infrastructure of our "former poorer allies" in Europe, Japan, China, or just about any place else in developped countries?

Have you heard of many bridges falling down in Europe?

You are a dreamer, aren't you?

 

[ProudLefty]

Entitlements do in fact grow, as more people retire and start using them.



...what policies are those specifically?



In your opinion raising marginal rates by 20% (basically) would have no impact on the economy and be beneficial for us all?

It is entirely absurd to argue that "the economy was good with taxes at these rates, therefore tax rates made the economy good."

Social Security pays its own way and always has. It has not contributed even one penny to America's debt. Please don't be blaming Social Security for something over which it has no control.
Medicare is climbing, but climbing at a slower rate than private health insurance, so I am not sure why you see growth in Medicare as being a problem, unless you believe health care for Americans is in itself a problem.
As to the GW actions that contributed to doubling the nation's debt and the worst recession since Hoover:

1. Unprovoked invasion of Iraq, no attempt to pay for it.
2. Ill-advised invasion of Afghanistan, no attempt to pay for it.
3. Gift to pharma of Medicare drugs handout, again with no effort to pay for it.
4. Tax breaks for the wealthy, and no attempts for offsetting spending cuts.

Thats 4 pretty big unforced errors.

 

[ProudLefty]

First of all, please stop lecturing me about not lecturing you. You obviously don't know anything about my politics, so don't presume to know what my policy positions are.

Second, infrastructure development made sense in the 1930s when America was a rural, roadless waste largely without electricity and construction was still mostly unmechanized. Developing the nation's infrastructure was, of necessity, a decades-spanning process requiring tremendous amounts of manual labor. That's not the case today, when that infrastructure is already mostly in place and mechanization has made large numbers of workers unnecessary. (At any rate, WW2 probably did more to end the Depression than did the New Deal; it turns out burning all the excess production capacity and killing unemployed workers tends to maximize employment and production efficiency).

When your house springs a leak, you hire a repairman and, a few hours later, he's done. How is this a model for putting the lion's share of the 20%+ of our unemployed workforce back to work on a relatively permanent basis?

And at any rate, how is taxing people for jobs we're paying them to do in the first place going to reduce the deficit?

I wish I wrote things as well as others. Here is an excerpt from a progressive blog, but it says what I want to say, and says it better than I can.

"In 1982, at the same point in his Presidency as President Obama is now, but while jobs were still hemorrhaging and unemployment still rising in a recession, Ronald Reagan enacted the largest tax increase in American history–$100B additional taken from individuals and businesses by the Treasury. By January, 1983, Reagan’s approval rating was down to 35%.

Because this was St. Ronald, and not a Democrat in the White House, there were no chicken-littles predicting the tax hike guaranteed the end of civilization, or even arguing that “people know how to spend their money better than the government” (true, of course, for some expenditures, not for others). Less than one year later, the economy began to emerge from its recession, job losses stopped, and unemployment began to recede. Nearly 17 million new jobs were created by the end of Reagan’s term. Incidentally, Reagan raised taxes several more times during his tenure."