I don't know that Obams will be successful in solving our problems with an obstructionist Congress. I am hopeful at some point that we will have patriots in Congress who will insist on doing what is good for the country. At this point, Repuvlicans are saying no to taxes and they want to dismantle our safety net. Of course, they will deny that they want to do that, but they refuse to do anything to solve the health care problem so that Medicare costs are going to go out of control and the economic policies that are pushing wealth to the top (combined with a refusal to raise taxes) is making paying for social security difficult. Once there is fairness and we still cannot pay for social security then, ok, we will have to cut benefits. At some point, yes, everyone has to sacrifice. But not until we restore some fairness to our system.

Just to make it clear these major problems that have to be fixed:

(1) Too much military spending. A dollar spent on the military is not as economically productive as one spend in the private sector.

(2) Huge trade deficits--sending our wealth overseas

)3) Too much power of corporations vis-a-vis the worker. Creates wealth disparity. A subset of that problem is allowing U.S. corporations to go overseas, hire workers and sell in the U.S. Good for the corporation, bad for the U.S. workers that lose their jobs and it also serves as leverage to prevent other workers from demanding higher wages Another consequence is that even if we develop new technologies, U.S. corporations will take the jobs overseas which means we get little benefiot from the U.S. technology (at least in jobs) and also hurts in further development of the technology.

(4) Too much spending on health care--another drag on the economy

As for the Volt and ways government waste money--that will happen. You can try to minimize it but governments are not efficient. Howeverr, they can do certain things that the private sector cannot do and many times when private corporations are allowed to run amok they do far more damage than the govenrment ever wastes (e.g. 2008 Financial Crisis)

steve

Furthermore, when has raising taxes been the solution to massive budget deficits?

From 1946 through to 1980.

As a matter of fact, when have we ever run deficits like the last three years?

The war years. Then fiscal deficits only became a matter of course with the coming of Saint Ron, and atrocious with Bush II.

I think if we start adding up all the "insignificant" wastes of money, we'd have a decent sum

Why have you then consistently argued that raising taxes on the wealthy back to what they paid in 2000 would be insignificant and therefore not worth doing? (Shall I link you to your words?)
I agree that gains are to be made by many incremental cuts and incremental tax changes....Its only which ones... Singling out piddling individual programs like Volt, whilst ignoring massive 30 year old oil industry subsidies that are both a direct contributor to oil profits, and a sudsidy for the automobile industry is strikingly obtuse.

By refusing to cut government now, the President is unfairly passing trillions of dollars in debt on to future generations. They have no voice and no vote. That's as unfair as it gets.

And cannot one say this equally about those refusing to increase taxes, especially on the wealthiest? If its fairness that you want to argue, why is it fair to burden future working class and middle class generations with the costs of a tax break today for the wealthy?

It took thirty years of high taxes, and mostly good economies to pay down the debt required to pay for the existential war that was WWII. It took another thirty years of mostly deficit finance, and the fatal decisions regarding financial sector deregulation to create another debt that is still far below the heights of the debt problem of 1946.Those that argue that the deficits incurred after the crash were necessary in order to avoid a 1930's depression havn't been proved wrong. Nor was the added debt incurred to battle that crash responsible for more than a third of the accumulated debt. Two thirds were inherited . Already existed.

The lesson is that it will take similar solutions undertaken by the generation that assumed the debt in 46, Those solutions did not include most of the current conservative agenda. From 1946, governments invested in infrastructure, and education and expanded the social safety net massively. . During that time the economy rarely faltered the accumulated debt was paid down. If a similar attitude to deficits had been in place the debt would have been long gone years ago.... (In fact without Bushes tax cuts....maybe even by 2004 despite the previous 25 years.)
Why has that history been forgotten?
Conservatives like to talk about the "greatest generation", but seem to forget that in 946 and for the next thirty years the greatest generation tackled their own debt crisis. And did so while expanding the help to the disadvantaged among them. Not making their lives more difficult, which is what many cuts being proposed would do....

rickyp wrote:steve

Furthermore, when has raising taxes been the solution to massive budget deficits?

From 1946 through to 1980.

A flat-out lie. Was it raising taxes that did it? Or, was it a booming manufacturing sector and construction industry?

As a matter of fact, when have we ever run deficits like the last three years?

The war years. Then fiscal deficits only became a matter of course with the coming of Saint Ron, and atrocious with Bush II.

Another lie. We have never had 3 consecutive $1T+ deficits until now.

I think if we start adding up all the "insignificant" wastes of money, we'd have a decent sum

Why have you then consistently argued that raising taxes on the wealthy back to what they paid in 2000 would be insignificant and therefore not worth doing? (Shall I link you to your words?)

Knock yourself out.

I've said it would not solve the problem. Liberals rail against the Bush tax cuts as if they were the sole contributor to the deficit. That is far from the case. Want proof? Raise the tax rates to Pre-Bush levels. Does that bring in more than a trillion a year?

I've never argued it wasn't worth doing because it was insignificant. I do argue that it would remove more available capital from the system, which is not good.

In fact, I would favor tax increases if Obama gets re-elected.

Why? Because like a man who gets drunk and then jumps into the ocean, I think America is prone to forget the ills of liberalism. Eventually, someone has to jump in and save the drunk. Liberalism is the notion that the government has the right to take as much money as it takes to give people the services and goods they want. The problem is that the people on the margin eventually realize they are better off stopping working and simply living on government largesse. We should have a safety net. We should not provide entitlements as a way of life.

Hiking taxes and the subsequent boom in both spending and deficits (yes, this is what Democrats will do--they always do), might help remind people of why it is not good to put a socialist in charge.

I agree that gains are to be made by many incremental cuts and incremental tax changes....Its only which ones... Singling out piddling individual programs like Volt, whilst ignoring massive 30 year old oil industry subsidies that are both a direct contributor to oil profits, and a sudsidy for the automobile industry is strikingly obtuse.

I'm not proposing that, so nice straw man.

By refusing to cut government now, the President is unfairly passing trillions of dollars in debt on to future generations. They have no voice and no vote. That's as unfair as it gets.

And cannot one say this equally about those refusing to increase taxes, especially on the wealthiest? If its fairness that you want to argue, why is it fair to burden future working class and middle class generations with the costs of a tax break today for the wealthy?

I can cut a whole lot more from the government than you can raise in taxes.

Our debt just equaled our GDP. What is Obama's plan to reduce the debt?

He's had three years. He called Bush's deficits "immoral" and "unpatriotic."

He's been worse and has proposed nothing. Yet, he deserves reelection? Based on what?

It took thirty years of high taxes, and mostly good economies to pay down the debt required to pay for the existential war that was WWII. It took another thirty years of mostly deficit finance, and the fatal decisions regarding financial sector deregulation to create another debt that is still far below the heights of the debt problem of 1946.

More lies.

Subtract from our current debt the "War on Poverty," the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. Now, what is the debt?

The problem is spending. Obama has increased discretionary spending at an extraordinary rate.

Conservatives like to talk about the "greatest generation", but seem to forget that in 946 and for the next thirty years the greatest generation tackled their own debt crisis.

More lies.

By underfunding Social Security and Medicare, two creations of "the greatest generation," they passed on tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities to their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. They may have sacrificed in the Pacific and in Europe, but they spared no expense for themselves in retirement while not planning for it themselves.

You have a real problem with the numbers. They are not on your side.

steve

A flat-out lie. Was it raising taxes that did it? Or, was it a booming manufacturing sector and construction industry?

It was an expanding economy AND high taxation. Both. (Or do you deny the existence of the tax rates?)
More importantly the economy was expanding despite the high taxation rates. So lets' decouple the idea that high taxes always mean that the economy is shackled...

steve

Another lie. We have never had 3 consecutive $1T+ deficits until now

./
In terms of percentage of the GDP there have been higher deficts.(war years) More importantly, the total accumulated debt is the fundamental problem, not just year to year deficits. Its the accumulation of debt, with only 2 years of respite from 1980 through to today that addedd to what, in 1980, was an accumulated debt 34% of the GDP.. (Paid down from 146% of GDP in 1946)..
True conservatism would have eliminated that accumulated debt before drastically changing course on taxation ....

steve

I've said it would not solve the problem

.
And I agreed with you, that by itself it wouldn't. But does that make it not worth doing, or is incremental contribution important?

Steve

I do argue that it would remove more available capital from the system, which is not good.

The capital is currently "available" and was made available from the advent of the cuts in 2001. And somehow this "availablitiy" didn't have a significant effect on the economy.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest that most of it is "sitting on the sidelines" or invested overseas... If received in taxes it could contribute to a lower deficit...


steve

I can cut a whole lot more from the government than you can raise in taxes

So? You're not doing the cutting.
If it were easy to cut all the services, Congress would have gotten on with the job. Every time cuts are discussed, thre's stakeholders fighting tooth and nail, and nothing getting done. Watch the opposition to defence spending that is certain to arise...
A balanced approach that shares the pain, is the only way enough people will buy in to get anything accomplished. As long as the rich aren't perceived to be paying their fair share ...half the population will fight the notion that they alone should suffer through cuts to services from which they benefit.
Fairness is part of the equation.

By underfunding Social Security and Medicare, two creations of "the greatest generation," they passed on tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities to their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. They may have sacrificed in the Pacific and in Europe, but they spared no expense for themselves in retirement while not planning for it themselves.

If the cap was raised on SS taxes from $106,000 to include all income, then the SS would be fixed for the forseeable future. If medicare were allowed to negotiate service provisions aggressively, instead of being fettered by Congress with laws that favour Pharma and Medical providers, they could probably deliver the efficiencies that oterh socialized medical systems provide. (And in places like Germany, and the Netehrlands and Canada, they deliver equivalent care for about 35% less in per capita expenditure.)
It wasn't the greatest generation that did these two things, it was Congress. At the behest of lobbyists for big pharma etc.
Based upon their track record, the greatest generation were willing to pay for the service they received. Witness the high tax rates they willingly endured, in order to pay down the accumulated debt.

steve

Yet, he deserves reelection? Based on what?

Probably doesn't. But increasingly it seems he might anyways*';; he'll seem to a majority that he's the guy on the side of the working and middle classes... So he might just be reelected, undeserving as he is...

rickyp wrote:steve

I can cut a whole lot more from the government than you can raise in taxes

So? You're not doing the cutting.
If it were easy to cut all the services, Congress would have gotten on with the job. Every time cuts are discussed, thre's stakeholders fighting tooth and nail, and nothing getting done. Watch the opposition to defence spending that is certain to arise...
A balanced approach that shares the pain, is the only way enough people will buy in to get anything accomplished. As long as the rich aren't perceived to be paying their fair share ...half the population will fight the notion that they alone should suffer through cuts to services from which they benefit.
Fairness is part of the equation.

Balanced approach? I recall offering a 20% across the board (both military and social services), and you said the smaller agencies would not be able to handle the cut. What is your idea of balance? Should the needed cut be the same to all facets of the budget?

Please rate what the CUT (not a smaller increase, not compared to GDP back in 1946) should be for the following agencies.

Defense
Social Security
Education
EPA
NEA
HUD
Health care (medicaid, medicare, Obama care)

This will tell me if the "balance" you speak of if true or not.

Balanced approach?

By this I mean, increased taxation - as well as spending cuts. Right now, the right will not discuss taxation, even for the top 1% - except for cuts.
This shouldn't be a one sided discussion.

As for Medicare, if i were all three levels of government I would simply mandate that they begin negotiating with supplied services to ensure that they are receiving the best possible prices...
Right now, its usually the opposite.
I'm pretty sure that Meidcare costs could be brought down with an aggreessive, business like approach. An approach they have been legislated against ...
I don't know about the rest B, But I think its easiest to start with one number across the board and ask each department to implement the budget cuts as they see best. Its when politiicans start to micro mange that things get messy.
I suspect that defence could be cut more than the rest without a significant impact on the militaries performance.

rickyp wrote:steve

A flat-out lie. Was it raising taxes that did it? Or, was it a booming manufacturing sector and construction industry?

It was an expanding economy AND high taxation. Both. (Or do you deny the existence of the tax rates?)
More importantly the economy was expanding despite the high taxation rates. So lets' decouple the idea that high taxes always mean that the economy is shackled....

What happens when you raise taxes in a recessionary environment?

You've left so much out of your "analysis" of the post-war boom. What was the effective tax rate for the rich (not what the printed rate was, but what did they actually pay)? How did the environmental and occupational regulations compare with what we have today?

The list of questions you leave unanswered is extensive. You might as well compare our current economy to that of the post-Civil War economy for all the "insight" you bring.

steve

Another lie. We have never had 3 consecutive $1T+ deficits until now

./
In terms of percentage of the GDP there have been higher deficts.(war years) More importantly, the total accumulated debt is the fundamental problem, not just year to year deficits. Its the accumulation of debt, with only 2 years of respite from 1980 through to today that addedd to what, in 1980, was an accumulated debt 34% of the GDP.. (Paid down from 146% of GDP in 1946)..
True conservatism would have eliminated that accumulated debt before drastically changing course on taxation ....

On your last point, I agree--and that is why we need a real conservative approach to the economy. The socialist approach, let's call it the Obama approach, will break the bank. Please. Name ALL of the massive cuts Obama has proposed. What is the sweeping tax legislation he's proposed? What is the road map for ending annual trillion dollar deficits?

The difference, dear Ricky, is that the current deficits are entirely that of choice. Bush started it and Obama threw gasoline, kerosene and every flamable substance he could get his hands on, into the fire.

Again, WHAT IS OBAMA'S PLAN?

steve

I've said it would not solve the problem

.
And I agreed with you, that by itself it wouldn't. But does that make it not worth doing, or is incremental contribution important?

By itself, all it would do is further depress the marketplace. Look, the Bowles-Simpson commission put forth a plan. That was Obama's team. What did he do with it?

Put it in the dumper.

That plan, and others that have been proposed, would have lowered rates while eliminating many deductions, thus producing a net tax revenue increase. However, it would also have meant cuts in spending. That is something the current President will not do. He won't even negotiate it. Instead, he demagogues anyone who would dare bring even a hint of economic responsibility to the process.

Steve

I do argue that it would remove more available capital from the system, which is not good.

The capital is currently "available" and was made available from the advent of the cuts in 2001. And somehow this "availablitiy" didn't have a significant effect on the economy.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest that most of it is "sitting on the sidelines" or invested overseas... If received in taxes it could contribute to a lower deficit...

Right. What was the unemployment rate right before the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bubble burst? It had no effect?

All that would happen if taxes were raised right now is that we would go back into a recession and Democrats would spend even more.

steve

I can cut a whole lot more from the government than you can raise in taxes

So? You're not doing the cutting.

So? You're not raising the taxes.

Grow up a little. Please?

I think anyone who had any desire to make cuts, could cut between $300 and $500B in the first year without even breaking a sweat. If you couple that with an overhaul of the tax code, I think you could jump start the economy in short order.

If it were easy to cut all the services, Congress would have gotten on with the job.

Come on now. You can't even be serious. First off, Democrats won't even acknowledge there is a spending problem. They keep blathering, like you, that we just need to raise taxes. Again, take every penny the rich earn. We still run a deficit.

Second, where is the President's plan? Is he a leader or a mouse?

Third, Republicans have passed a budget with cuts in it. What have the Democrats done?

A balanced approach that shares the pain, is the only way enough people will buy in to get anything accomplished.

Very nicely cut and pasted from any of a number of Obama speeches.

So, where is the President's "balanced" plan? So far, he's proposed tax increases and no spending cuts, other than the military (I'm guessing the drone programs are off limits).

As long as the rich aren't perceived to be paying their fair share ...half the population will fight the notion that they alone should suffer through cuts to services from which they benefit.
Fairness is part of the equation.

Right, the half that pay zero income taxes are upset. They want more from the half that do. Isn't that just swell?

You and your socialist idol cannot raise taxes high enough to cover what is coming.

By underfunding Social Security and Medicare, two creations of "the greatest generation," they passed on tens of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities to their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. They may have sacrificed in the Pacific and in Europe, but they spared no expense for themselves in retirement while not planning for it themselves.

If the cap was raised on SS taxes from $106,000 to include all income, then the SS would be fixed for the forseeable future. If medicare were allowed to negotiate service provisions aggressively, instead of being fettered by Congress with laws that favour Pharma and Medical providers, they could probably deliver the efficiencies that oterh socialized medical systems provide. (And in places like Germany, and the Netehrlands and Canada, they deliver equivalent care for about 35% less in per capita expenditure.)

Why didn't the Democratic Congress and Democratic President prioritize these things?

Further, if you're going to lift the SS cap entirely, are you going to change the scale of compensation? Is it fair for someone who has a one year windfall to pay a massive SS penalty and then receive a pittance upon retirement?

No matter how you twist or turn, the President has led on NONE of these issues.

It wasn't the greatest generation that did these two things, it was Congress. At the behest of lobbyists for big pharma etc.

Wrong. FDR and LBJ set up the programs. Obama, Pelosi and Reid could have "fixed" them as you suggest, but did not.

Based upon their track record, the greatest generation were willing to pay for the service they received. Witness the high tax rates they willingly endured, in order to pay down the accumulated debt.

Absolute swill. Prove it. What percentage of the national debt was paid off by individual taxation?

steve

Yet, he deserves reelection? Based on what?

Probably doesn't. But increasingly it seems he might anyways*';; he'll seem to a majority that he's the guy on the side of the working and middle classes... So he might just be reelected, undeserving as he is..

That's the most honest thing you've said in months. You're wrong about whose side he's on, but I can't expect you to be completely straightforward. He's a socialist trying to play like he's on the side of the common man. He's more like the Politburo member: living a lavish lifestyle and indifferent to the people's plight as long as he and Michelle are living well.

rickyp wrote:

Balanced approach?

By this I mean, increased taxation - as well as spending cuts. Right now, the right will not discuss taxation, even for the top 1% - except for cuts.
This shouldn't be a one sided discussion.

And, the Left won't discuss cuts.

Hmm, maybe there should be a middle man, a broker, someone who brings the 2 sides together instead of demagoguing.

Let's call him "the President."

What's that? We have one?

Could have fooled me.

He calls for "balance" but only for tax increases. How is that "balanced?"

RickyP,
If you and I were the two leaders of government, would you agree on this?

All budgets are cut by 20% ( I agree that the directors should do what they will with the money) What number would work for you?

All income taxes are 20% with no deductions. If this number is not acceptable to you, what number is? Keep in mind I will NOT agree to a progressive tax structure.

These are great starting points. It would make the government learn to live on what it gets. As long as balance is your desire should the numbers be the same? Absolutely. Just give me the numbers.

I surmise it is not balance you are looking for. It is one-sidedness (is that a word? (sic)) leaning toward your position. I do not like corporate welfare anymore than I like social welfare. My idea of balance is different than yours. I am all for citizens paying either the same amount (flat fee), or the same percentage (flat rate). I am all for all budgets getting the same cut. This balance you speak of is as Shakespeare said...

"Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:

Balanced approach?

By this I mean, increased taxation - as well as spending cuts. Right now, the right will not discuss taxation, even for the top 1% - except for cuts.
This shouldn't be a one sided discussion.

And, the Left won't discuss cuts.

And you two can shout across each other all year and neither will budge an inch. What a joke!

The President is not only calling for tax increases. There are spending cuts being discussed (and increases when inflation and population increase are occurring can be per capita real terms cuts, even before you consider the effect as a proportion of GDP).

What the Republicans are doing is not simply opposing making all of the deficit up with taxes (which was the straw man Steve so effectively demolished a page or so ago as so ridiculous). They are in Congress making a stated position of opposing any tax increases.

Looks to me like the Democrats are making a better show of offering compromise. They are saying they will discuss spending cuts, and there is a Defence Review that is making cuts. But they are also saying that tax increases - particularly for the rich who are not being too badly affected by the recession compared to the rest of America - should be a part of the solution.

Brad - I love how you try to make out you are so concilatory while making such contrained demands. In real world corporate finance, a 20% across the board cut in budgets would be seen as a sign of desperation, lack of ambition and imagination and base stupidity. Instead, it would make more sense to invest in areas that can maximise growth and profits, and cut back in (or completely divest in) others, while looking to make general savings where possible. Top-down targets like the one you keep suggesting may be simple, may sound clever, but frankly they are not.

Better to set a target of a set level, invite each deparment to explain how it can meet or exceed it (and what the impacts would be), and what level of savings they can make without making a material difference to front line services. And then use such a review to take a more intelligence-led approach to reducing spending.

danivon wrote:The President is not only calling for tax increases. There are spending cuts being discussed (and increases when inflation and population increase are occurring can be per capita real terms cuts, even before you consider the effect as a proportion of GDP).

What the Republicans are doing is not simply opposing making all of the deficit up with taxes (which was the straw man Steve so effectively demolished a page or so ago as so ridiculous). They are in Congress making a stated position of opposing any tax increases.

Looks to me like the Democrats are making a better show of offering compromise.

You're just wrong. Here's a conservative Republican making an offer. http://www.nationaljournal.com/supercom ... s-20111108

What was the Democratic response? Where is Obama's plan?

You don't know what you are talking about. How rare.

Here is the Democratic response - in the article you linked to:

But Democrats say Republicans calculated those figures by counting the savings portion of eliminating some tax deductions but not counting trillions in lost revenue from reducing marginal-tax rates. The Congressional Budget Office would likely score the proposal as increasing deficits when compared to current law.
Super committee Democrats therefore rejected the offer as “unserious,” according to an aide who called the plan “a huge windfall for millionaires and does nothing to address our debt crisis.”

To be fair, it's not the Senate Republicans who are being so uncompromising. It's in the House where the mood is different. Which may be another reason why the Democrats don't regard the offer as serious - getting a bill out of the Senate that would just get shot down by the House isn't necessarily productive.

I am trying to show the myth of RickyP's "balance" he spoke so fondly of.

I know that my opinion is not going to fly with the left, that is why a compromise is what is needed. Cutting only the military is not compromise. If cuts are to be balanced, I wanted to see how that would look to him who said "balanced". No hard numbers from the Canadian Conjecturist as of yet.

danivon wrote:To be fair, it's not the Senate Republicans who are being so uncompromising. It's in the House where the mood is different. Which may be another reason why the Democrats don't regard the offer as serious - getting a bill out of the Senate that would just get shot down by the House isn't necessarily productive.

Let's be fair then.

Why isn't that "productive?" It would show the reasonableness of the Democrats, wouldn't it? It would show that bipartisan effort between the Senate and the President is possible. It would also definitively demonstrate that it is the House that is obstructing a budget compromise.

But, wait.

The Senate hasn't passed a budget in almost three years. Why is that?

The President didn't even propose a serious budget last year (it failed to get even ONE Democratic vote). Why is that?

The House passed one, but the Senate would not even consider it or revise it so that it might go to committee. Why is that?

Here's one theory: by saying the CBO "would likely" do something, or that the Republican House would not actually vote for this or that, it gives the President a political fig leaf for his absolute failure to lead.

You say Democrats are willing to cut? Where is the plan?

The truth is the Democrats are like the idiot riding the nuclear bomb in Doctor Strangelove. They are perfectly willing to take the country to hell if the Republicans might somehow be blamed for it.