The Republican refusal to countenance any way to raise revenues to tackle the massive debt incurred largely on their watch and from a recession which started under Obama's predecessor makes one thing clear. They are not a political party in government; they are a radical faction that refuses to participate meaningfully in the give and take the Founders firmly believed should be at the center of American government. They are not conservatives in this sense. They are anarchists.
Their fiscal anarchism has now led to their threat to destabilize and possibly upend the American and global economy because they refuse to compromise an inch. They control only one part of the government, and yet they hold all of it hostage. I cannot believe they are prepared to allow the US to default rather than give an inch toward responsibility. Except I should believe it by now. Everything I have written about them leads inexorably to this moment. Opposing overwhelming public opinion on the need for a mixed package of tax hikes and spending cuts, drawing the president into a position far to the right of the right of his party, and posturing absurdly as fiscal conservatives, they are in fact anti-tax and anti-government fanatics, and this is their moment of maximal destruction.
Boehner and McConnell have one goal and it is has nothing to do with the economy. It is destroying this president and this presidency. They are clearly calculating that the economic devastation their vandalism could create will so hurt the economy that it could bring them back to power through the wreckage. And they will use every smear, every lie, every canard possible to advance this goal.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Perfect Paragraphs
Andrew Sullivan strings a bunch of them together:
where is the dem's budget plan?
ReplyDeletedid they pass a budget in 2010? did I miss that? Just what is so bad about the cut, cap and balance act? Last time the balance budget amendment went to the senate vice president biden voted for it, what change his mind about it? 49 states has some form of balance budget law, (Vermont if you are wondering) why NOT the federal government, finally the republicans plan (don't know about the dems)are more in line with the public, Rasmussen finds that 62% of likely voters fear that a debt deal will raise taxes too much, while 56% worry that Congress and the President will cut spending too little in any such deal.
What's wrong, Jill, you're not paying enough in taxes? The next time you do your tax return, why don't you give the refund to the Treasury? Move back to NY so you can contribute more.
ReplyDeleteChetumaire,
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm not paying enough in taxes. Neither are you. Fact is, our tax rates have not been this low since 1950. (Source.) You can dance for joy about that fact if you want, but don't kid yourself: the government is broke, we're going to have to pay our debt eventually, and we're not going to pay it through cutting government spending alone. Taxes need to go up.
The only tax increases currently being debated right now are (1) to let the Bush-era tax cuts expire (which was supposed to happen without any argument in 2012), automatically raising $400 billion (which Republicans have suddenly decided they are against, after approving the expiration in 2010), and an additional $400 billion in revenue to be obtained by raising taxes on people earning over $500,000 per year.
Unless you are thinking that I am earning over $500,000 a year, which I am not, I will not be seeing any tax increases that have not been planned (or, actually delayed) for years now.
Of course, when the interest rates on your car payment, mortgage, credit cards, et cetera, go up, costing you a few hundred dollars a month, when the U.S. credit rating gets downgraded because of Republicans' refusal to accept $800 billion in tax cuts alongside $3 trillion in spending cuts, at least you can feel happy by reminding yourself that it is not your taxes that have gone up.
I don't pay interest on anything. I pay cash and live within my means... wouldn't it be nice if the bought & sold politicians in DC did that with the money they take from me? 49 states have balanced budget amendments. Think about it some more and don't let your Hope & Change glasses cloud your view.
ReplyDeleteInteresting: you talk about the dreamy-eyed, short-term-impossible, medium-term-difficult, long-term-maybe prospect of a balanced budget amendment (in which paying down the debt still will require increased taxes), and then admonish that my (and 80% of all Americans'— source) common-sense solution to balancing the budget is to cut spending AND raise revenue is "hope and change glasses clouding my view." Ironic.
ReplyDeleteAgain (although you failed to address it): Taxes need to go up in order to balance the budget and pay down the debt... at least in the short term.
Not long ago, Obama warned that raising taxes in a struggling economy is "the last thing you want to do."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-vs-obama_576524.html?nopager=1
Obama agreed with Ferguson’s premise – raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. “First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”
Would it also surprise you that president Obama was against raising the debt limit? said it was a sign of poor leadership.
personally for myself i don't see why we have a debt limit since we never pay any attention to it,
and if you think we are ever going to pay down this debt.....i doubt i will ever see it, wasn't the last president to pay off the national debt Andrew Jackson?
Tomm,
ReplyDeleteYou selectively quoted the article you linked to. In the very next paragraph, Obama says:
"We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposals that have come out of Congress – which by the way were different from the proposals I put forward – still wouldn’t kick in until after the recession was over."
Again: Raising taxes on people making over $500,000 a year.
The Republicans are the ones banging their fists on the table demanding all of these austerity measures now-now-now, holding a gun to the head of the economy if they do not get their $4 Trillion in savings. Obama cut a whole lot more in government spending than he felt was healthy, and it was only when he got past his comfort level (cutting Medicaid to the point where people were going to start losing necessary medical care, for example), that he then started to insist tax cuts make up the remainder... and, I reiterate... taxes on people making over $500,000 a year.
As for raising the debt limit, Obama came out 4 months ago and said that he regretted that vote. (Source.)
I'm not sure if we are ever going to pay down this debt, but one thing is for certain: Without cuts to military spending and tax increases, it is a certainty that we will never pay down the debt.
Even if the income tax rate were raised to 100 percent on millionaires and billionaires, it would still not cover the trillions of dollars the government is spending. Time and again, at both state and federal levels, in this country and in other countries, tax rates and tax revenue have moved in opposite directions many times. After Maryland raised its tax rates on people making a million dollars a year, there were fewer such people living in Maryland – and less tax revenue was collected from them.
ReplyDeleteIn 2009, many people specializing in high finance in Britain relocated to Switzerland after the British government announced plans to take 51 percent of high incomes in taxes.
Conversely, reductions in tax rates can lead to more tax revenue being collected. After the capital gains tax rate was cut in the United States in 1997, the government collected nearly twice as much revenue from capital gains taxes in the next four years as in the previous four years
Even if the income tax rate were raised to 100 percent on millionaires and billionaires, it would still not cover the trillions of dollars the government is spending.
ReplyDeleteYes it would. Simple as that. By raising the tax level just 4% on people earning over $500,000 a year, government revenue will be raised by $400 billion.
Time and again, at both state and federal levels, in this country and in other countries, tax rates and tax revenue have moved in opposite directions many times. After Maryland raised its tax rates on people making a million dollars a year, there were fewer such people living in Maryland – and less tax revenue was collected from them.
There was no flight of millionaires and billionaires from America the last time the tax rate was at 39% under President Bush I. There was no flight of millionaires and billionaires from America the last time the tax rate was at 45% under Reagan. There was no flight of millionaires and billionaires from America the last time the tax rate was at 60% under Nixon. There was no flight of millionaires and billionaires from America the last time the tax rate was at 94% under Eisenhower. The use of state jurisdiction is a red herring: People (especially wealthy people with 2 homes) can move their state of residence without a fraction of the effort required to change their nationality.
In 2009, many people specializing in high finance in Britain relocated to Switzerland after the British government announced plans to take 51 percent of high incomes in taxes.
Americans can't escape taxation on domestically-earned income by moving to foreign countries (except for the first $82,000 of income). I should know.
Conversely, reductions in tax rates can lead to more tax revenue being collected. After the capital gains tax rate was cut in the United States in 1997, the government collected nearly twice as much revenue from capital gains taxes in the next four years as in the previous four years.
Again, another non-sequitur. The highest increase in tax revenue with a change in the capital gains tax came in 1986 when Ronald Reagan raised the tax. In other words, there is no proveable correlation between the CGT and revenue thereof as you claim.
"raising the tax level just 4% on people earning over $500,000 a year, government revenue will be raised by $400 billion." That is a 10 year projection. This year's deficit ~ $1.6 trillion. Meanwhile the GAO's report on duplication in government programs has found much more than that $40B/yr in waste: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP Happy reading. Change your glasses. ; )
ReplyDeleteSigh. It's getting a bit sad the way I keep shooting down your arguments, and all you do is just move on to the next argument like your last defeat means nothing.
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Even if the income tax rate were raised to 100 percent on millionaires and billionaires, it would still not cover the trillions of dollars the government is spending."
4% raise from 35% to 39% would raise $40 billion per year... or $10 billion per percentage point. Raising it to 100% (like you said) would yield an additional 61%... or $610 billion. Well... it's not enough to cover the entire deficit... but that is where the cost cuts come into play.
Okay... next hopeless argument from you for me to shoot down please.