Well, Monte, I agree that 42% is too high on dividends, though is a modest part of return on investment in stocks, no? The tax has been 15% on capital gains on stock investments, has that changed as well? It seems to me dividends should just be treated as ordinary income. I do think that taxes on capital gains on stocks should be increased to 28%

i don't know we can ignore the past. The Republicans have created a problem where we do not have enough revenues to keep budget deficits under control. Your position is essentially demanding that liberals accede to conservatives' demand for a small federarl government with a smaller social net, as a result of Bush irresponsibly cutting taxes and raising military spending. All this talk about fixing loopholes and the like is a smokescreen--we need to increase taxes so that the gtovenrment can do the things it needs to do. I think on moral and economic grounds liberals cannot let conservatives win on this issus---conservatives created the problem, the problem is easilly fixable by lowering military spending and rolling back the Bush Tax cuts and we need to insist on that. I hope that moderate independents likey yourself will agree to this--it is not a radical notion to simply say, no, it is clear that the Bush Taxs are not feasible and need to be ended.

As for medical costs, i say the best thing to do is trial and error. Let' s have each state choose one of three plans: (1) Obama's plan, (2) single-payer, and (3) some conservative market oriented solution. Try it out for a five year period. See which plan works best. We can argue until we are blue in the face what to do to cut medical costs, but the best thing to do is implement competing alternatives and see what works best in practice.

Doctor Fate wrote:Ours is not so high, I would suspect. Well, at least with regard to our GDP. Having the government as THE source of retirements is not our issue . . . yet.

And it's not the case in Europe, either. We have private pensions too, and most people do not work for the government. For example, I don't expect to have a single penny of state pension when I retire, because I will have a decent employer pension, which is 'opted out' of SERPS/SSP.

However, American - like us - has public pensions in the form of Social Security, and have we not recently been discussing State pension liabilities (State governments are still governments)?

But hey,you rely on 'suspicion' and 'thought not', Steve, so I understand you indulging in a little shadenfraude.

b

Strange you would pick Reagan and Bush I as the start of this issue. In the link I posted (hope you looked at it) it shows deficits all the way back to Ike! Yet you pick Reagan because it fits your narrative.

Deficits. But not increased debt as a percentage of the GDP.

Debt as a percentage of the GDP, did not start to increase after 1945 until reagan. Deficits prior to that occurred at a rate in periods of an expanding economy that did not expand the actual debt to GDP ratio. Which is the best measure of debt.
And thats why it fits the narrative.

It also fits the narrative, becasue deficts prior to 81, were never more than one year events. After reagan they became the norm, year after year, until a couple of good years under Clinton.

steve
Bonkers.

Look, let's say I have lung cancer. The doctor says, "Well, if you hadn't smoked for 35 years, we would not be here." I say, "You know what Doc? I'm going to go back in time 35 years and not smoke."
He looks at me and prescribes some psychiatric medication.
On the other hand, if I say, "When can we start the chemo?" at least I sound rational.
Our country cannot afford to look back in time and wish we had done things differently. We can argue about whether Reagan's spending was necessary or not, but that won't change a thing going forward. We're not in the Cold War any longer, so the same conditions do not apply. We can argue about whether Clinton left a surplus or not, or whether he benefited from the irrational exuberance of the dot com run up, but it won't change where we are today. We can argue GWB should have been less "compassionate," but that will reduce our deficit by zero pennies.
A leader, which President Obama is alleged to be, says, "This is where we are. How we got here does not matter. Here's where I'm going to take us and here's how we're going to get there. I need your help. Let's get this done."
Instead, President Obama has blamed Bush and said the solution was to raise taxes on "those guys." Anyone with half a functioning IQ knows his solution is not even the beginning of a solution

Here's where your analogy is wrong. If you are diagnosed with lung cancer, and the doctor says its due to smoking - do you continue to smoke?
The first thing you do is change past behaviours that got you into the mess.
In the case of fiscal imbalance, its generally conceded that the Bush tax cuts created much of the fiscal mess . But it should also be apparent that running deficits when the economy was pretty good (as Reagan and Bush and Clinton did ( 3 years) contributed to that - a rational person would take that into account.
Then, begin chemotherapy?
Well, if you aren't physically strong enough to survive chemotherapy, you are put onto a regime of nutients, rest etc. in order to make your system strong enough to sustain chemotherapy.
Same thing with the economy. Get it moving before the aggressive and necesarry belt tightening within the govenrment begin. To put pressure on the economic system by removing economic activity right now would kill it...

And how does this dicussion fit into the absurd Romeny was a bully hit job?

Every thread here tends to devolve to the same arguments in the end.

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote:
And how does this dicussion fit into the absurd Romeny was a bully hit job?

Well, sometimes we digress because the digression is more interesting than the topic. Excuse us for a second more ...

Freeman:

i don't know we can ignore the past. The Republicans have created a problem where we do not have enough revenues to keep budget deficits under control. Your position is essentially demanding that liberals accede to conservatives' demand for a small federarl government with a smaller social net, as a result of Bush irresponsibly cutting taxes and raising military spending. All this talk about fixing loopholes and the like is a smokescreen--we need to increase taxes so that the gtovenrment can do the things it needs to do. I think on moral and economic grounds liberals cannot let conservatives win on this issus---conservatives created the problem, the problem is easilly fixable by lowering military spending and rolling back the Bush Tax cuts and we need to insist on that. I hope that moderate independents likey yourself will agree to this--it is not a radical notion to simply say, no, it is clear that the Bush Taxs are not feasible and need to be ended.

I'm a businessman by trade, so I'm more inclined to fix the problem than fix the blame. Organizations that spend their time fixing the blame tend not to solve their problems. Of course, both political parties play the blame game. It's one of many reasons why government is less efficient than business.

I've been trying to think of a historical parallel where one party got us into a mess, and the other party had to fix it. I think that 1980 is the best example where the nation turned rightward after the Carter administration. (I agree that some of the problems were set in motion by Johnson/Nixon). The nation turned to Reagan and the Republicans to fix it, and I believe they largely did. Hyper inflation and high interest rates and high unemployment rates were largely solved. I was there and I remember.

In 2008 the nation turned to the Democrats to fix problems largely brought on by the Bush Administration (although the Democrats in Congress were partially to blame). Obama had a full mandate and a Democratic Congress to fix things. If he had the skills of a Reagan or Johnson or Clinton, he may have. He got 2 full years and he blew it. He focussed on the stimulus bill, continued earmarks, cash for clunkers, and then spent the rest of his political capital on health care "reform". In 2010 the American people elected a Republican Congress for a reason.

I agree with you that some of the Bush tax cuts have to go. But more important is reforming the tax code and our regulatory structure. This is not a smokescreen. This is about a better economy for all of us. And significant spending restraint has to be part of the solution, as Randy points out.

Ray, while you do make a lot of sense, the problem is that you don't speak for anybody in the Republican Party, the majority of whom (in Congress at least) have publicly committed to never voting for any tax increase ever. I'm quite sure that if it comes to the crunch they'll inevitably have to renege on that pledge, at least some of them, but for the moment it stands, and IMO it's completely irresponsible.

If you look at what's happening in Britain and across Europe, where severe austerity measures are currently being imposed, governments are seeking to tackle the deficit through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. It's tending to be more of the former than the latter, and rightly so, but tax increases are nevertheless a vital part of the mix.

ray

I'm a businessman by trade, so I'm more inclined to fix the problem than fix the blame. Organizations that spend their time fixing the blame tend not to solve their problems. Of course, both political parties play the blame game. It's one of many reasons why government is less efficient than business.

In a business, someone gets to decide what the problem is... and what the causes are..and then decide on a course of action.
With a divided government like you've got, you can't get two sides to agree on what the problem is, let alone what the causes are, never mind what to do about it...
In business the people who make the decision and take the course of action are often wrong and businesses fail. OR the management fails and someone else is brought in.....but they always get a clear swing at the bat. With majority parliamentary government its the same... With the US you seem stuck.
Rarely do new managements come in and try the same course of action that got the company into the mess....
And rarely are business management constrained by commitments to specific ideological stands like the Norquist tax pledge. Generally they consider all alternatives....

ray

I agree with you that some of the Bush tax cuts have to go. But more important is reforming the tax code and our regulatory structure. This is not a smokescreen. This is about a better economy for all of us. And significant spending restraint has to be part of the solution, as Randy points out.

But you're rational. When you get guys like Richard Mourdock as a senator (The candidate who knocked out lugar) what possiblity is there to take that first step?

Are you saying the the people were wrong in electing Mourdock? That wouldn't surprise me if that is what you thought. The people rightfully voted, and Lugar is gone. Choice made.

Ricky:

but they always get a clear swing at the bat.

As did Obama/Pelosi/Reid. They missed and now the Republicans might get a chance at bat.

I think Sass's post is right on target.

I don't have a problem with reforming the tax code. What I have a problem with is Republicans linking closing loopholes with cutting rates. (and winding up with not net gain in revenues)

A rational solution to the problem of large deficits is raise taxes a bit and cut spending a bit. But as Sass pointed out the Republicans have tied their identify as a party to never raising taxes. This makes finding a solution almost impossible. Obama has indicated that he would be willing to cut spending if there is some tax increases. When one party refuses to come to the table and compromise...should we not hold them accountable for it.

I think you are being a bit hard on Obama for his handling of the economy, Monte. What should he have done? Dramatically cut spending when the economy was struggling? Given how weak our economy has been with Obama doing nothing that would hurt a recovery (like tax increases), I think that would have been incredibly risky. What did Reagan do? He used the government to massively prime the economy by cutting taxes and raising spending. The problem is, at some point you can't just keept having the government prime the economy. If Obama had dramatically cut taxes and increased spending like Reagan did, we probably would have a better economy right now but we would be looking at 2 trillion a year deficits. For the most, part Obamahas steered a somewhat conservative course which has stabilized our economy and it is very hard to see what he could have done significantly better (especially if your focus is on deficits) He probably should have had more of a stimulus package but that wasn't passable, anyway. If you think of something Obama could have done of a significant nature, then let us know what it is. One of the problems with this no-tax pledge of Republicans and this eagerness to cut medicare and social security is that it is making liberals dig in their heels. See Clinton's presidency as to what can happen when the parties can work together on keeping deficits in check (What was the solution? Cut military spending and not cut taxes and it worked!) That kind of solution is not possible in today's environment

rickyp wrote:Here's where your analogy is wrong. If you are diagnosed with lung cancer, and the doctor says its due to smoking - do you continue to smoke?

Actually, many people do. My Dad did.

The first thing you do is change past behaviours that got you into the mess.
In the case of fiscal imbalance, its generally conceded that the Bush tax cuts created much of the fiscal mess .

No, it's not. We've argued this before and I've posted the precise numbers. If we eliminate those cuts, they won't put a divot in the annual deficit.

But it should also be apparent that running deficits when the economy was pretty good (as Reagan and Bush and Clinton did ( 3 years) contributed to that - a rational person would take that into account.

Great. Now, if we can just have a dot-com boom.

Look, Ricky, looking back and analyzing ONE and only ONE aspect of the situation is foolhardy. Naturally, YOU want to do that.

The bigger question is what do we do going forward? President Obama's plan is for trillion dollar deficits for several more years. I don't think that's acceptable and no amount of taxation is going to fix that.

Sassenach wrote:Ray, while you do make a lot of sense, the problem is that you don't speak for anybody in the Republican Party, the majority of whom (in Congress at least) have publicly committed to never voting for any tax increase ever.

While nominally true, it ignores a great deal. For example, many in the GOP have expressed a willingness to flatten the tax code and remove a lot of deductions, which are overwhelmingly used by the "rich." Democrats insist on a straight-up increase. Republicans want genuine cuts in spending. Democrats support already occurring cuts--like war expenditures in Iraq. In other words, spending that was never going to happen suddenly becomes a "cut" when it is "eliminated."

Here's the real problem: we have a President. The President is supposed to lead. So far, all he's done is pound his chest, inform Republicans "Elections have consequences," and tried to bully his way through. That's not leadership; it's partisanship.

That is Obama: Partisan-in-Chief.

bbauska wrote:Are you saying the the people were wrong in electing Mourdock? That wouldn't surprise me if that is what you thought. The people rightfully voted, and Lugar is gone. Choice made.

Hmm. So by that measure, Obama is a 'choice made' and people should quit moaning?

'the people' are not perfect, Brad, and democracy will throw up bad representatives. Don't hide behind the legality of process to defend the product of it - if you think Mourdock is a good choice then let's hear why.

Freeman:

I think you are being a bit hard on Obama for his handling of the economy, Monte. What should he have done? Dramatically cut spending when the economy was struggling? Given how weak our economy has been with Obama doing nothing that would hurt a recovery (like tax increases), I think that would have been incredibly risky.

I agree with you that Obama was dealt a tough hand. However, you did ask for suggestions in another thread, and Steve, Brad, myself, and some others came up with over 20 suggestions as I recall. Certainly some of them deserve merit, no? For one, he could have kept his promises to bend the health cost curve down, to cut out waste and fraud by looking at every line item in the federal budget, to stop earmarks, and to take the best ideas from both sides of the aisle. Wouldn't you agree that he has failed on those promises?

By the way, it seems to me that liberals / progressives often suggest that Keynesian-ism is the only economic policy available. But there's much more to economics then what Lord Keynes recommended 70 plus years ago. It's not only about how much government spends or taxes. It's also about spending efficiently, taxing efficiently, regulating efficiently, supporting productivity, developing effective trading policies, and creating a long term environment whereby businesses have a sense of the rules by which to engage.