Gluttony and the immorality of the budget debate

[tinythinker]

http://peacefulturmoil.blogspot.com/201 ... udget.html

[tinythinker]

That was quick. I called on someone to step up, and they did. No causal relationship of course. But here is a truly centrist, fair and practical budget proposal consistent with what Americans in the main have been asking for: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-s ... 46573.html

[mdsimpson92]

Having just discussed this is US government, I really don't think the lobbyists have that much power in Washington. Sure there is the occasional bad egg, but in large part when Republican vote for say Big Oil, while those individual companies do have plenty of money, those republicans are more likely to vote for oil anyway due to either the state they represent supports this or that they themselves believe in Big oil.

Funny thing about the military, they don't even want the funding. Robert Gate says he could cut around $100 Billion and be fine. We make two engines for the same fighter jet. But that means jobs in one represenatives state or district.

The Reagan tax cuts actually did help for what it did. But that was because the tax rate for the rich during the Carter years were ridiculously high. My teacher said he thinks it was around 90%. Which obviously discouraged investment because the personal gain was not worth the risk. When he brought it down to an incredibal degree (somewhere in the 20s) that did free them up to invest and make more money. However, today is definitely not that sitution. We are definitely below the bell-curve at 35%. Raising it to 39 won't kill the rich and would actually help in government funding. But as we know, the people hate taxes and the last Republican that raised taxes lost to Bill Clinton.

[tinythinker]

Having just discussed this is US government, I really don't think the lobbyists have that much power in Washington. Sure there is the occasional bad egg, but in large part when Republican vote for say Big Oil, while those individual companies do have plenty of money, those republicans are more likely to vote for oil anyway due to either the state they represent supports this or that they themselves believe in Big oil.

Funny thing about the military, they don't even want the funding. Robert Gate says he could cut around $100 Billion and be fine. We make two engines for the same fighter jet. But that means jobs in one represenatives state or district.

The Reagan tax cuts actually did help for what it did. But that was because the tax rate for the rich during the Carter years were ridiculously high. My teacher said he thinks it was around 90%. Which obviously discouraged investment because the personal gain was not worth the risk. When he brought it down to an incredibal degree (somewhere in the 20s) that did free them up to invest and make more money. However, today is definitely not that sitution. We are definitely below the bell-curve at 35%. Raising it to 39 won't kill the rich and would actually help in government funding. But as we know, the people hate taxes and the last Republican that raised taxes lost to Bill Clinton.

The other issue is that these folks don't even pay the actual tax rate currently assigned, using all manner of financial slight of hand to get out of their tax bills. I also hate the inappropriate analogy to house spending so many people want to use. If they followed their own logic, then what they would have to say is that they want the government (the household) to stick to a budget while always lowering taxes (cutting the household salary). It's nuts! The anti-government/anti-tax rhetoric has become a blindly followed dogma divorced from any fiscal reality or logic. I've heard at least three guys who were big on cutting social programs and taxes in the Reagan administration have been saying that the current populist conservatism has lots it economic sanity.

[mdsimpson92]

Of course, that was when neo-conservatism was a great deal more pragmatic. You're right, they are more dogmatic than before. What we need is John Boenher to grow a pair and reign the tea party members in.

[mdsimpson92]

Actually, I think there is a republican that is actually proposing cuts. I believe his name is Paul Ryan. Granted most of those cuts are to medicare and The Economist says that while his proposition is far from perfect. It would actually cut about 4 trillion dollars from the deficit over the next 10 years, again far from perfect, but at least he is giving somewhat viable alternatives. Moreover, I hear he actually would be willing to raise taxes if necessary. I hear Obama will be giving his own take on the idea within the week.

If Gates is able to cuts military spending by 100 billion then you would have a sizable dent in the deficit. Then if you increase taxes back to the Clinton years (we will hear a ton of moaning from both sides.)

[A Hermit]

Actually, I think there is a republican that is actually proposing cuts. I believe his name is Paul Ryan. Granted most of those cuts are to medicare and The Economist says that while his proposition is far from perfect. It would actually cut about 4 trillion dollars from the deficit over the next 10 years, again far from perfect, but at least he is giving somewhat viable alternatives. Moreover, I hear he actually would be willing to raise taxes if necessary. I hear Obama will be giving his own take on the idea within the week.

True, but the tax increases he's proposing only apply to the middle and working class; the rich get more tax cuts under Ryan's plan.

Essentially he's proposing to gut medicare and raise taxes for 90% of Americans so the uber-wealthy can pay even less.



And his plan will actually increase the deficit. http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/ ... rrent-law/

It's not a serious plan, and it's not intended to ever be implemented. It's designed to shift the debate to the right, and, sadly, it's having that effect.

[A Hermit]

The Reagan tax cuts actually did help for what it did. But that was because the tax rate for the rich during the Carter years were ridiculously high. My teacher said he thinks it was around 90%. Which obviously discouraged investment because the personal gain was not worth the risk. When he brought it down to an incredibal degree (somewhere in the 20s) that did free them up to invest and make more money. However, today is definitely not that sitution. We are definitely below the bell-curve at 35%. Raising it to 39 won't kill the rich and would actually help in government funding. But as we know, the people hate taxes and the last Republican that raised taxes lost to Bill Clinton.

Revisionist history, I'm afraid. Reagan's tax cuts increased the deficit, which is why he abandoned them after the first round and raised taxes for the last six years of his presidency, by "broadening the tax base (ie, making poor people pay more and rich people pay less...). <A href="http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/ec ... cnn.com</a>

The top tax rate under Carter was 70%; same as it was under his predecessors all the way back to Kennedy...when it was 90%. That 90% rate was in effect through most of the `50's; the era conservatives nostalgically remember as the "good old days" when America's economy was booming like never before...<a href="http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rat ... p-rates</a>

And the sad fact is, since the Bush tax cuts businesses have invested less and less of their profits, preferring to dole out the windfall in <a href="http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/ ... /">bonuses and benefits for the boardroom boys.</a>

Returning those top marginal rates to Reagan era levels or slightly higher, and cutting runaway military spending <a href="http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments ... tsheet2010">(which has increased in the US by 81% since 2001)</a> would seem to me to be a more rational approach to dealing with deficits than giving even more breaks to the new Wall Street aristocracy and making sick old people pay for it...

[mdsimpson92]

No I remember that Reagan did bring taxes back up. Just not to its original level. Your right on the tax level being around 70%. That was a bit of a fail on my part. However, there was an increase of revenue during the Reagan administration. Just that he did considerably increased in expenditures. Particularly the military.

I do think the military will be getting cuts, at least if Robert Gates has his way. But on the other hand Social Security is going to get more expensive as more Baby Boomers retire.

[Metacrock]

the budget debate is such a joke. Both sides are hypocrites. they are not even trying to reduce the deficit. They actually admit it! All either one wants is to not be seen by their people as giving up on the project. they are willing to wreck stuff like clean air for that!