No, I/We do not agree that we need to raise taxes and especially do not need to massively raise taxes. We must reduce the size and scope of government. We are going broke and cannot tax our way out of this mess. If we raise taxes now, we will only postpone our day of reckoning and further cement the entitlement mentality that is destroying our country.
The previous administration presided over an economic meltdown brought on, in truth, by citizens buying homes they could not afford, which became securities that were not secure, causing an avalanche. Prior to that event, there were much more modest deficits brought on by the whole government being guilty of over spending and not addressing entitlements.
While both parties were to blame for over spending and not addressing entitlements. Never mentioned by smug liberals including our President is that the opposition party, the Democrats, were in control of the legislative branch of government the last 2 years.
Where, prey tell has this administration done a good job at limiting the deficit? Yes, they will begin to collect taxes for health care before benefits are implemented, but soon the benefits will overwhelm the health care apparatus inevitably leading to rationing.
We do not need to raise taxes! They are already a large enough part of GDP.
We need to reform entitlements dramatically to save this country. There are courageous conservatives which would propose such reform, except the Democrats, Rich's Democrats, the Liberals, the welfare promoters who want to keep us dependent to keep themselves in office, will demagogue the issue, AS ALWAYS, and prevent AS ALWAYS an meaningful reform. There will ultimately be social carnage, just like in Greece because of the Liberals who insist on -UCKING UP (sorry) our country.
Rich you know in your heart that massive tax increases are not going to solve our problem, we, like Greece, need to curtail the welfare state and it is your party that stands in the way.
Last time:
Cut discretionary spending
Raise the retirement age
Revoke health care reform
Revoke the rest of the stimulus
Do not do another stimulus (for God's sake)
Freeze Colas for one year.
Eliminate earmarks
and most importantly
Extend the Bush tax cuts and get out of the way of the American economy.
And while you wrongly accuse us of never answering your question, despite my answering it many times (yes it may not completely eliminate the deficit, but it would restore some fiscal sanity and even more importantly allow the economy to grow!)
You never address the fairy tale that is your scenario: What evidence, now answer this!, do you have that after your massive taxes are implemented, without any spending controls in place, the bar will not be reset for even more spending and entitlements and deficits and and and.
And when are your going to admit that the current management of our economy has sucked it dry with increasing entitlements, bailouts and deficits resulting in low growth and high unemployment?
You can't continue to blame the previous administration for the housing calamity when the liberals have held the purse strings for 4 years, done things exactly their way and we continue to flounder.
Freedom, free markets, self reliance and minimal government.
7 comments:
No, I/We do not agree that we need to raise taxes and especially do not need to massively raise taxes. We must reduce the size and scope of government. We are going broke and cannot tax our way out of this mess. If we raise taxes now, we will only postpone our day of reckoning and further cement the entitlement mentality that is destroying our country.
The previous administration presided over an economic meltdown brought on, in truth, by citizens buying homes they could not afford, which became securities that were not secure, causing an avalanche. Prior to that event, there were much more modest deficits brought on by the whole government being guilty of over spending and not addressing entitlements. REVISIONIST BULLSH**.
The Republican president and Congress were responsible for irresponsibly tax-cutting away the structural surplus that Clinton and the Democrats had created with the 1993 Budget Bill. You ditched Pay/Go, you inherited a $200B surplus and handed off a $1.3T deficit. You can rationalize all you want. Your supply side economic theory has been completely discredited.
While both parties were to blame for over spending and not addressing entitlements. Never mentioned by smug liberals including our President is that the opposition party, the Democrats, were in control of the legislative branch of government the last 2 years. NOT RELEVANT – what tax or spending initiative did they implement prior to the Bush Collapse?
Where, prey tell has this administration done a good job at limiting the deficit? Yes, they will begin to collect taxes for health care before benefits are implemented, but soon the benefits will overwhelm the health care apparatus inevitably leading to rationing. They inherited a $1.3T deficit that was rapidly growing. They arrested said deficit trajectory while also implementing a stimulus plan that has brought growth back to the economy and employment rolls. Don’t forget – they inherited the worst economy in 70+ years. The deficit is coming down and will be less than they inherited next year. That, of course, is quite different from Bush who took a $200B surplus and turned it into a $1.3T deficit. Facts is facts, my friend.
We do not need to raise taxes! They are already a large enough part of GDP. And lower than all the other western industrialized nations. “Large enough” is a relative term. Compared to what? 2009 brought the lowest relative tax bite in 60 years – and taxes are “large enough”? Again – objectively compared to what?
We need to reform entitlements dramatically to save this country. HOW SO? WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE?There are courageous conservatives which would propose such reform, except the Democrats, Rich's Democrats, the Liberals, the welfare promoters who want to keep us dependent to keep themselves in office, will demagogue the issue, AS ALWAYS, and prevent AS ALWAYS an meaningful reform. There will ultimately be social carnage, just like in Greece because of the Liberals who insist on -UCKING UP (sorry) our country. This paragraph was a bunch of chickensh** blather. Be specific, my partisan friend. Watch the ads this fall as Republicans “demagogue” the Democrats for cutting Medicare spending $500B.
Rich you know in your heart that massive tax increases are not going to solve our problem, we, like Greece, need to curtail the welfare state and it is your party that stands in the way. Again – argumentative, chickesh** blather. Our taxes are the lowest in relative terms and we can’t afford to hike them? What are we just really stupid compared to the rest of the world? Are we inferior? Krugman already explained to you why Greece is not a parallel. Frankly, one of their biggest problems is tax avoidance – the wealthy are not paying their share in Athens.
CONTINUED in NEXT COMMENT
Last time: Jim, you have no idea how much each item would save and, unfortunately, it would not add up to even one-third of the deficit. Don’t you understand that? Why can’t you look at the budget and quantify your cuts? It’s not that tough. You went to college. You went to the esteemed University of Louisville med school. How come you are stuck on this simple matter of arithmetic?
Cut discretionary spending – HOW MUCH $$$?
Raise the retirement age – HOW MUCH $$$?
Revoke health care reform – THAT SAVED MONEY
Revoke the rest of the stimulus – ITS OVER – WHAT ELSE YOU GOT?
Do not do another stimulus (for God's sake) – NOT COUNTED IN $1.4 TRILLION
Freeze Colas for one year – HOW MUCH $$$?
Eliminate earmarks – HOW MUCH $$$?
and most importantly
Extend the Bush tax cuts and get out of the way of the American economy. According to the CBO, this would COST nearly $300B per year. How will you make up for that? So, your tax cuts eat up almost all of your spending cuts. Congratulations, you now have $1.3T deficit. What now?
And while you wrongly accuse us of never answering your question, despite my answering it many times (yes it may not completely eliminate the deficit, but it would restore some fiscal sanity and even more importantly allow the economy to grow!) How would it restore fiscal sanity? You haven’t balanced the budget! You don’t even have a clue how to do that. That was supposed to be the exercise: balance the budget and you missed by about $1.3T! You MUST be a Bush voter.
You never address the fairy tale that is your scenario: What evidence, now answer this!, do you have that after your massive taxes are implemented, without any spending controls in place, the bar will not be reset for even more spending and entitlements and deficits and and and. THAT’S EASY! I simply point out the 1993 Budget Bill that worked great until George W Bush came to town and had a Republican Congress to work with.
And when are your going to admit that the current management of our economy has sucked it dry with increasing entitlements, bailouts and deficits resulting in low growth and high unemployment? The “bailouts” prevented a collapse worse than the Great Depression. You don’t believe me? Ask George W Bush, Hank Paulsen, Ben Bernanke, Barack Obama, and Tim Geithner. Or, do you know more than all those guys? Low growth? WE HAD SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE GROWTH WHEN OBAMA TOOK THE OATH! Down 700,000+ jobs in January 2009. GDP dropping like a stone. THESE AREAS HAVE ALL BEEN RESTORED UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA.
You can't continue to blame the previous administration for the housing calamity when the liberals have held the purse strings for 4 years, done things exactly their way and we continue to flounder. Huh? We will remind you of the Bush Administration/GOP Congress for the rest of your life. Did they stop talking about Hoover (R) and GOP Congress in 1934? THIS IS YOUR LEGACY MY REPUBLICAN FRIEND.
Freedom, free markets, self reliance and minimal government in a Keynesian context. That works for me!
Now Doc – you did a very poor job supporting your arguments. Finish Bruce Bartlett’s book and if you aren’t “GWB stubborn” perhaps your positions, and thus the quality of your arguments, will change for the better.
And so a debate makes.
Let's see who agrees with me in November.
One point, Medicare can only be saved from rationing and its out of control spending if patients are involved in payment of their bills.
The objection to the $500B cuts were that they were with a govenment cleaver, not by transfering more reponisbility to the patients, which is critical, yet which our current political situation will not allow.
Your party not mine stands in the way of real reform.
So you think Clinton raised taxes in 93, got his ass kicked in 94, and the conservative had nothing to do with the surplus?
You think with taxes are increased next year, it will have no effect on economic activity.
You think the problem in Greece is the wealthy not paying their fair share...really...the European protests about the work week, the entitlements? But you think the problem is with the wealthy?
I read some of the book, he uses slivers instead of looking at the whole picture.
Let me say this, if "O" does not extend the Bush tax cuts next year, Katie bar the door, having said that I think he will, he knows he will be commiting suicide otherwise.
And!!! This is not 93, the Baby Boom generation has arrived to bankrupt us. Like Bruce, you miss the current picture.
And so a debate makes. II IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT THE BUDGET. YOU HAVE EMPIRICALLY NOT PROPOSED A BALANCED BUDGET - BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION. YOU ARE OVER $1T UPSIDE DOWN.
Let's see who agrees with me in November. THAT IS LITTLE COMFORT. SEE YESTERDAYS POST RE KERRY AND MAHER.
One point, Medicare can only be saved from rationing and its out of control spending if patients are involved in payment of their bills. YOU & I PARTIALLY AGREE HERE. WE HAVE RATIONING NOW, OF COURSE, ALL THROUGH THE SYSTEM. I'D LIKE TO SEE IT PRIORITIZED COMPREHENSIVELY RATHER THAN THE STATUS QUO. REMEMBER, I LIKED THE OREGON PLAN.
The objection to the $500B cuts were that they were with a government cleaver, not by transfering more responsibility to the patients, which is critical, yet which our current political situation will not allow. NO JIM, THE OBJECTION IS 100% CYNICAL. SCARING MEDICARE RECIPIENTS IS A SUCCESSFUL VOTE GETTER - JUST ASK THE DEMOCRATS. AS FOR THE DETAILS - FEW WILL HEAR YOUR GOOD IDEAS ABOUT PATIENT RESPONSIBILITY.
Your party not mine stands in the way of real reform. THAT IS UTTERLY RIDICULOUS. WHO RENEGED ON DEBT COMMISSION SENATE DEAL? SEVEN REPUBLICANS LEFT SHAKING IN THEIR BOOTS BY GROVER NORQUIST, THATS WHO.
So you think Clinton raised taxes in 93, got his ass kicked in 94, and the conservative had nothing to do with the surplus? I WOULDN'T SAY NOTHING - I WOULD SAY FAR LESS THAN THE DEMOCRATS + GHWB in 1991, FAR LESS THAN DEMOCRATS + CLINTON 1993. THEY FOLLOWED THE 1993 BUDGET BILL BLUEPRINT, WHICH IS SOMETHING. I HAVE ALWAYS SAID TO YOU THAT 1994 GOP REVOLUTION GETS SOME CREDIT.
You think with taxes are increased next year, it will have no effect on economic activity. NO - DIDN'T SAY THAT. OF COURSE IT WILL HAVE AN EFFECT. A VAT WOULD BE THE LEAST DISRUPTIVE BUT MUST BE PHASED IN SO THAT IT DOES NOT CREATE TOO MIUCH DRAG ON A FRAGILE ECONOMY. ONE ADVANTAGE OF A VAT IS THAT IT CAN BE MODULATED AS NEEDED - IT BECOMES ONE MORE FISCAL TOOL (RATHER THAN MONETARY).
You think the problem in Greece is the wealthy not paying their fair share...really...the European protests about the work week, the entitlements? But you think the problem is with the wealthy? ALL OF THE ABOVE. THE GREEK PROBLEMS ARE VAST AND ON A SCALE WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW MEANINGFUL COMPARISON TO THE USA.
I read some of the book, he uses slivers instead of looking at the whole picture. YOU NEED TO READ THE WHOLE THING. HE KNOWS MORE IN HIS PINKY - BIG PICTURE, SMALL PICTURE - THAN YOU KNOW ALTOGETHER. AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE BOOK IS AN EASY READ AND A GREAT 20th CENTURY ECONOMICS HISTORY LESSON.
Let me say this, if "O" does not extend the Bush tax cuts next year, Katie bar the door, having said that I think he will, he knows he will be commiting suicide otherwise. HE WILL EXTEND THE <$250K STUFF, THE TOP END GOES BACK TO 39.6%, GUARANTEED. ITS NOT EVEN IN QUESTION. CAP GAINS BACK TO 20%. NO MORE CARRIED INTEREST LOOPHOLE.
And!!! This is not 93, the Baby Boom generation has arrived to bankrupt us. Like Bruce, you miss the current picture. YOUR LAST SENTENCE IS SILLY. BARTLETT AND I HAVE THE WHOLE PICTURE AND ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE BUDGET - SOMETHING THAT HAS STUMPED YOU. I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH YOUR OBSERVATION ABOUT THE BOOMERS AND 1993 v 2010.
JIM - THE DEFICIT WILL NOT BE TACKLED WITH TAX CUTS. AS GREG VALLIERE HAS SAID, IT WILL COME THROUGH A "GRAND BARGAIN" OF SPENDING CUTS AND TAX HIKES. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. HOPEFULLY, HE IS WRONG ABOUT THE TIMING, WHICH HE HAS SAID WILL WAIT UNTIL THE CRISIS IS UPON US. IN MY OPINION, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE TOO LATE.
Crazy Rich writes:
Your math is shitty, if taxes are not raised to cut the deficit there will be virtually no discretionary spending, interest on the debt will be overwhelming. Yes entitlements need to be reduced but they are a drop in the bucket. It would seem that in the near future that military spending will need to be drastically reduced..the choice will be simple..missiles vs food. Liberals are not to blame for this mess, as Baxter said, the system is bad.
Rich Miller is right. Jim - it's not just that your "math sucks" - you haven't even tried to balance the budget. It was a phony exercise. Obviously, you want to complain about the deficit so long as a Democrat is in the WH. As a practical matter, you are far more concerned with tax cuts than fiscal rectitude.
If you were completely honest, you'd admit that you would be just fine eliminating Social Security and Medicare tomorrow if it meant the avoidance of tax hikes. Unfortunately, we could do that and we would still have a deficit!
Post a Comment