And, of course the much anticipated name calling, blame game, and news media bias on both sides is in full swing. What a surprise. But, ignoring all the games, I'm still left with one very basic simple question. If spending is not cut substantially, how in the fuck do the libs intend to pay the bill? There is not one single economist I've heard of who says we can sustain current spending levels. There is not one single economist who claims that increasing tax on the so-called rich would even make a dent in our current deficit problem. World markets tank because those in the market know that these things being said by economists are likely to be true and we simply cannot continue like this. We already have about five real life examples in Europe that support the views of economists. And yet, we have this blind debate that seems to suggest that there is a legitimate choice to continue deficit spending at levels that are now at 15 trillion. We have libs who actually believe that we aren't spending enough. So, back to the simple basic question, how do these libs think we are going to pay for this spending? Or, in other words, what in the fuck are they smoking?
No Congressional Democrat ever said spending should not be cut. They simply insist that some of the deficit (a minority of it, in fact) be closed with tax increases. The Republicans have refused any meaningful hikes. Even Republicans like David Stockman (Saint Reagan's budget director) say the gap cannot be filled without a tax increase.
They say there should be cuts but then all cuts are called "draconian" with grandmas starving in the street. And all of these cuts that will take place in 2014, etc. are fairy tales.
Remember, the basic question I ask is "how will we pay for the deficit spending?
1. What tax loopholes do the libs think need to be closed besides corporate jet issue? And how much revenue would this produce?
2. What spending cuts did the libs agree to make? How much revenue does that save?
I called the office of Mrs. Pelosi and asked these two questions. They refused to answer me except to say we support paying your "fair share". But not one word about what spending cuts they support.
I called the office of Harry Reid and asked, "will you agree to put up for vote each of the budget proposals that have been sent to the Senate after they were passed in the House?" Guess what, the response was that we believe all legislation presented to the Senate deserves a full and fair hearing. But, no direct answer to my question.
So, what do you know as fact that neither of these two phone calls produced? I'm still looking for an answer to the basic question, "how do you pay for the 15 trillion in deficit spending?" And, I will save my follow up question, "how do you pay for the 27 trillion in deficit spending that the OMB predicts will occur in ten years time if nothing is changed?
1) Make deep cuts in all budget items across the board.
2) Make changes in entitlement programs to get them back into balance.
3) Completely revise the tax code to eliminate loopholes everywhere. I assume this would mean the top bracket would pay more, but the point is to fix a broken system and make it fair.
"If spending is not cut substantially, how in the fuck do the libs intend to pay the bill?"
No one intends to pay the bill.
"There is not one single economist I've heard of who says we can sustain current spending levels."
Try Dean Baker. He says we should increase spending. Try Krugman, he says we should increase spending.
"There is not one single economist who claims that increasing tax on the so-called rich would even make a dent in our current deficit problem."
If you bothered to look, there's a lot of economists who state the obvious: The Bush tax cuts are the biggest reason for the deficit. Get rid of them, and you nearly get rid of the deficit. That would only change their tax rates from 35% to 39.6%.
http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2010/06/cbpp_bush_tax_cuts_deficit_1cef5.jpg
"we have this blind debate that seems to suggest that there is a legitimate choice to continue deficit spending at levels that are now at 15 trillion."
We don't have a 15 trillion dollar deficit. That's the national debt.
"We have libs who actually believe that we aren't spending enough. So, back to the simple basic question, how do these libs think we are going to pay for this spending?"
Raise taxes. It's pretty damn simple. Get rid of the Reagan tax cuts, and we're golden. Hell, if you just got rid of all the loopholes, you'd more than double what the IRS takes in from corporations alone.
"Or, in other words, what in the fuck are they smoking?"
Everyone here knows what I'm smoking. Isn't it strange that I can post more coherently here stoned then you when you're sober?
-- Modified on 11/22/2011 8:36:16 AM
Actually WW, I don't think you really answered either of the two basic questions I posed? Sort of the same kind of vague non answer that both Pelosi and Reid's office gave me when I called. Problem with solving a problem is you really have to approach it from a scientific standpoint. You've got to actually toss the rhetoric and define the facts. Simple to say, gee, tax tax tax. What are your expected figures to show such a solution would work? Go back and retract the Reagan tax cuts? As I recall Reagan actually did both cut taxes and then raise them ( by the way, he raised them in exchange for a dem promise to cut spending, but they renigged). I guess the economic boom of the Clinton years was a "myth" and we really needed to retract his predecessor's tax cuts? Don't think so.
You say, just tax more and life is good. You quote a handful of biased paid witnesses who as best as I can determine have never in their life gotten one of their predictions right? You ignore the real life examples in Europe right now that show you first hand what happens when you spend too darn much, and you tell me you have the answer? Sorry WW, too many facts prove you way wrong and I don't even need a "poll" to figure that out. So, raise the tax rate on rich by approx. 4% and that's gonna solve a 15 trillion dollar's in deficit spending? Gee, last I heard the OMB stated that raising the tax rate to 80% on the "rich" would only produce increased revenue of approximately 750B. And they also stated that without reduced spending, the budget would be 27T in ten years. What kind of math are you using that gives you a solution out of that?
"Actually WW, I don't think you really answered either of the two basic questions I posed?"
Alright. I'll give it another shot.
"Problem with solving a problem is you really have to approach it from a scientific standpoint."
I agree.
"What are your expected figures to show such a solution would work? Go back and retract the Reagan tax cuts?"
If you look at a historical graph of the national debt, you'll see that we never exceeded $1 trillion until the Reagan tax cuts were put in place. Reagan reduced top marginal income tax rates from 70% to 28%. He did increase taxes too, but he increased it on working stiffs. Payroll taxes doubled. This was done as a ruse to help pay for the baby boomers. The real reason for this was to allow the federal budget to borrow from Social Security, which is why SS is full of IOU's. It was just a game to shift the tax burden away from the rich and onto the working class. We need to fix that. We need to cut payroll taxes, lift the FICA cap, and increase top marginal income taxes.
"I guess the economic boom of the Clinton years was a "myth" and we really needed to retract his predecessor's tax cuts? Don't think so."
The boom of the 90's was a result of new technology, i.e. modern computers. I would note that under Clinton top marginal tax rates were increased from 28% to 39.6%. Republicans freaked out so much about this that they said it was the biggest tax increase in the history of the universe. Remember? By the way, that wasn't true.
I would also note that we still had a dot com bubble at the end of the 90's. That's because taxes weren't high enough.
"You say, just tax more and life is good. You quote a handful of biased paid witnesses who as best as I can determine have never in their life gotten one of their predictions right?"
Dean Baker predicted the housing crash years before it happened.
"You ignore the real life examples in Europe right now that show you first hand what happens when you spend too darn much, and you tell me you have the answer?"
Europe is in trouble because the housing market went bust. That's their problem. It seems you're ignoring the lessons from the Great Depression. The Depression wouldn't have happened if top marginal tax rates were cut all the way down to 25% in the early 20's. That created the 20's bubble and it's crash. The Depression wouldn't have taken hold if gov't had pumped liquidity back into the market when the stock market crash. "Roosevelt's Recession" happened in '37 because Roosevelt took the GOP's advice and started scaling back New Deal spending. WW2 finally got us out of the recession with a massive surge of gov't spending.
The problem, pwilley, is that we have a shortfall in aggregate demand. People are out of work, so they don't have money to spend, and so they aren't consuming. This leads to more people losing their jobs, and the cycle continues. To get out of this mess we need to increase demand. We have a 2.3 trillion dollar shortfall in demand right now. You're not going to fix that with a 800 billion dollar stimulus.
So, we have 2 options. 1) increase gov't spending or 2) put more money in the pockets of consumers. We're not doing either. Cutting gov't spending will only make matters worse. My preference is to put more money in the pockets of consumers. Raise the minimum wage. Make it easier to join or form a union. End free trade. Cut payroll taxes.
"So, raise the tax rate on rich by approx. 4% and that's gonna solve a 15 trillion dollar's in deficit spending?"
No, I think we need to raise the tax rate on the rich from 35% to 70%. We actually have a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit. The 15 trillion is the national debt. It would take 10-15 years to pay that down if we did what I'm talking about.
"Gee, last I heard the OMB stated that raising the tax rate to 80% on the "rich" would only produce increased revenue of approximately 750B. And they also stated that without reduced spending, the budget would be 27T in ten years. What kind of math are you using that gives you a solution out of that?"
I'd like to see a link on this. Regardless, top marginal income taxes ain't gonna get it done alone. We need a (small) transaction tax on Wall Street trading. Getting rid of capital gains taxes and just taxing it as income would help greatly too. A wealth tax I think is in order. According to David Stockman (Reagan's budget director) from 1980 to today the top 1% made more money than the entire human race did in all of human history before 1980. There is a solution to this problem, but it can't be solved without raising revenue. It is a mathematical impossibility.
That's not to say that cutting spending doesn't need to be part of this equation. There's no need for us to use our military to defend Germany and Japan from Stalin. But until we start taxing Warren Buffett at a far higher rate than we tax his secretary, then nothing is going to get solved.
-- Modified on 11/22/2011 10:02:37 AM
Take another hit because you're pretty much right, but with one major exception re the Bush tax cuts. Yes, it's true they have been the biggest contributors to the growth of the national debt since 2000 (followed by the Bush wars). But not even the Democrats are suggesting rolling them all back, only raising the top rate. That's why spending cuts are needed, too. In fact, the Dems have made it clear they'd agree to a package in which the spending cuts were several times greater than the tax increases.
You're right that the Bush tax cuts contributed seriously to the doubling of the national debt, as well as the current deficit. You're also right that the Dems aren't proposing anything that's going to solve the problem. Keeping the Bush era tax cuts in place for anyone isn't workable.
Like Bill Maher says, "Republicans are all balls and no brains, Democrats are all brains and no balls." Both parties disgust me.