Republican Leaders Draw A Line In The Sand
Both Boehner and McConnell have declined invitations to a state dinner by President Obama to honor the Chinese leader Hu. Obama is like a giddy schoolgirl getting ready for a date with the high school quarterback as he bends over to make the Hu feel special. Now Obama must feel smitten, since the White House had advised Congressional leaders that they were expected to attend the state dinner for Hu.
Nancy Pelosi, D. CA, has been a critic of China’s human rights record, but is anxious to be in the spotlight with a world leader and our gift from G-d. She will surely take the opportunity to quiz the Chinese dictator on China’s human rights’ violations with her inane sense of intellect and wit or perhaps Obama has wisely told her to keep her pie hole shut.
Shakespeare understood the addiction of the Progressive Socialists, and described the problem over 400 years ago.
Henry IV, Shakespeare:
I can get no remedy from this consumption of the purse; borrowing only lingers and lingers it out, but the disease is incurable.
This is only the third state dinner of Obama’s Administration and with his attention to extravagance and to show the dictator how we Americans can waste public funds, the dinner will probably be epic for a country that is mired in a recession and near bankruptcy. Every attempt will be made to show the man who wants, (has already decided) to dump the dollar as the international currency standard, that he is absolutely correct in his assessment of America’s financial leadership and wisdom, especially with the current administration.
For Boehner and McConnell to decline their invitation may seem like a lack of manners and etiquette to many; however, Harry Reid, who referred to the dictator as a dictator, is predisposed in Nevada and will meet with the Chinese dictator with Boehner and McConnell on Thursday as well.
Boehner, when quizzed about missing the state dinner, replied with diplomatic aplomb:
“Without accepting most of that question, the president of China is coming to the Hill on Thursday. We’re going to meet with him in a bipartisan fashion and I look forward to seeing him in the future.”
A rare show of diplomacy is appreciated in Washington these days; however, the question is remains in the shadows, like an assassin with a knife, how much of a friend is this country we call China. Can we trust them? or is their intention to destroy us economically and militarily. With a leader like President Obama, they know they can seize the advantage and manipulate his obeisance and hero worship of Communist leaders and dictators as if he were a gullible child.
(View all pictures of Chinese execution: Warning Graphic)
A professional horseman for over 50 years, Skook continues to work with horses. Skook has finished an historical novel, Fifty Thousand Years, that traces a mitochondrial line of DNA from 50,000 years ago to the present. The story follows a line of courageous women, from the Ice Ages to the present, as they meet the challenges of survival with grit and creativity. These are not women who whimper of being victims, they meet the challenges of survival as women who use their abilities without excuses or remorse, these women are winners, they are our ancestors.
Fifty Thousand Years is available in paperback and e-book, it is getting great reviews. You can purchase a copy here; Visit me on Facebook.
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Dylantheauthor
HEY,Y”al, WHAT is it with CHINA,? WHY is he being entertained and given such a big deal by the GOVERNMENT, you never hear of invitations to the WHITE HOUSE regarding AMERICANS,
how about inviting a group of CHRISTIANS ‘familys with there children as a special dinner
of many courses, to show them that their tax go in the right pocket, what CHINA ever did to AMERICANS
except to lend money to the GOVERNMENT not lend money to the AMERICANS,
and AMERICA don’t owe nothing to CHINA, only the government has borrowed the money,
so let them buy their own dinner,
@antisrocks: Regarding the estate tax, I’ll defer to the father of capitalism, Adam Smith:
http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-II-2-4.htm
Or (great GOP President) Theodore Roosevelt, who
http://www.physiciansnews.com/finance/405.html
My own feeling is that, in the United States of America, every person should have the right to amass as big a fortune as is possible. It’s entirely reasonable for successful people to pass financial security along to their children, but it’s corrosive to our national culture for people with vast fortunes to be able to endow all of their descendants in near perpetuity with lives of both leisure (if chosen) or power or both.
When my father in law died, he left a modest “estate” of $1.4 million to his four children. The estate tax at the time ended up taking more than 50% of this. Not a single “heir” voiced a single complaint: their father left them with gifts of far greater value than money.
We should make it on our own. That’s always been the key to our success as a nation.
@Kansas: In the long ago time in which I was born, there were no “classes” in America. Some people had a vision, others didn’t. We all inherited genes. Some inherited money, but few inherited money which lasted beyond one or two following generations, unless renewed through the labors of those who followed.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Interesting article Larry, I hope you are not offended with the sawbones nombre: I couldn’t resist, purely in an effort to be in the spirit of the quote. Since most of us haven’t been to China, it was interesting to read the commentary by those of Chinese heritage who had lived there for varying periods of time; still, their opinions seemed to vary as wildly as ours.
Like Russia, their political system could easily ‘progress’ in several different directions. Whether they slip back into their Communist dystopia or become a truly enlightened country in the sense of Jefferson and his drinking buddies, will be revealed in the future. All things considered, dealing with a country like China that is developing a technological and military superiority should be done through the image of strength rather than weakness, whether speaking of leadership or military capability. The idea of negotiating from a position of subservience and weakness is a fool’s game that will yield lesser results at the very least with the ever present ominous possibility of disaster and chaos.
@Skook:
I agree with that, but there’s a difference between style and substance. Speak softly, but carry a big stick. Be a gracious host to your visitors, but pay your own bills and don’t become indebted to a visitor who happens to be your rival.
Real strength is not using tough words and refusing to bow. It’s being tough enough to have the will to pay your own bills.
The best way for us to have stood up to China would have been to allow ALL of the Bush tax cuts to expire.
I blame Obama as much as I blame the GOP. Both lack the vision (and patriotism) to see beyond the next election.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: I can’t believe the heirs of your FIL weren’t outraged that the government took 50% of his estate. It wasn’t the government that earned or accumulated his wealth. I also think the less government the better.
Larry, if estate taxes are oppressive, people who want their children to inherit their wealth will be dividing up the business and proceeds much earlier in life to avoid the loss. Real estate can be sold to relatives and kids can be earning ridiculous salaries. I doubt if any of our Elites, like many I have worked for, would leave their estates vulnerable to the IRS. I am thinking of the Dupont, Kennedy, Carnegie, and a multitude of others that I better not mention. Card carrying Liberals all, except they have professional bean counters in their employ at all times to watch over these nagging details. I think the fortunes that will be gutted are those who neglect to manage their estate and those who cash in early, the true Elites are not that interested in neglecting the welfare of their dependents who wear the same genes. It is a rhetorical game of taxing the wealthy, except we really want those wealthy over there to pay up, we have taken care of our own. Nancy Pelosi caused a lot of unnecessary grief with her sense of Elitist self-entitlement by using the air force as her personal air line for her and her family. This is the sense of Liberal Elitist entitlement that causes resentment and distrust among the public. To think of Ms Pelosi being willing to fork over 50% upon her death or John Kerry being willing to fork over 50% of the Heinz fortune is a little far fetched no matter how altruistic your personal motives and beliefs.
@Skook:
You say:
That’s the idea behind the gift tax.
The way it currently works is as follows:
ESTATE TAX
First $5,000,000 is tax free. This is from EACH parent! So the first $10,000,000 is tax free. Beyond $10,000,000, it’s a 35% tax.
GIFT TAX
Everyone can gift $13,000 per year to as many different people as he/she wants, and it doesn’t even need to be reported to the IRS.
Beyond $13,000 to any one person, then the amount IN EXCESS of $13,000 needs to be reported (but it’s not taxed).
Once the total amount of reportable (over $13,000 in any one year to any one person) gifts to individuals exceeds $5,000,000 (lifetime; $10,000,000 for a couple filing jointly), then additional pre-mortem gifts (and 100% of the post-mortem estate) are taxed at 35%.
This is aimed, obviously, at the super-duper wealthy.
I think it’s incredibly generous. Bill Gates could still endow his heirs with tens of billions (although, in Gates’s case, he’s supposed to be giving most of it away to his foundation).
But many people are grumbling that it’s still too confiscatory
With respect to Pelosi and Kerry, I never once believed that Liberals were, at the level of their own person finances, any less selfish than anyone else. Liberals are humans, just like everyone else — only they tend to be less religious and therefore tend to be less personally charitable.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, the Bush tax cuts had Obama with his back to the wall: if he let them expire, and the economy headed South, that would have been the coup de gras for his reelection. Now if the economy turns belly-up, he can always say, it was the fault of the Bush tax cuts and not his personal management style. From the point of the extension of the tax cuts, the president will be running the country and the economy as if it were a campaign. All actions have a political price to be paid, it is the Obama’s job to offend as few people as possible for the next 21 months. The ideological projection has been closeted; unless, it is expedient to apply the principles. Otherwise, the campaign is in high gear and right now he is running against no one, so it is imperative to build up as much of a lead as possible. Killing the tax cuts and taking a few dollars out of the paychecks during these trying economic times would have left him with a deficit rather than a lead in the race. High energy prices and the resultant increases in food and every other commodity will be a negative factor that wont be going away and another deficit that will be hard to hide.
@Skook: I agree 100% with your analysis (#113). I’d have been thrilled had Obama walked the plank on this, for the good of the country. He could have had the moral high ground by allowing ALL tax cuts to expire (not simply those on the rich). I don’t believe that allowing the cuts to expire would have added more than a few months of pain onto the recovery. There’s no capital shortage, now, and tax cuts are the least effective form of economic stimulus.
I think that, in times of crisis, a great President can ask the people to all share in the pain/sacrifice, for the sake of the nation. And the people will — amazingly — rise to the task. In my entire life, the only “sacrifice” the government ever asked of me was to register for the draft, and I drew a high lottery number. Today, we don’t even ask that. Lyndon Johnson did raise taxes to finance Vietnam, but I was in school and didn’t have to pay these extra taxes. Today, we declare wars and cut taxes at the same time. Compare our lot in life with that of the Greatest Generation, who endured the Great Depression, endured WWII rationing, won the war, then paid off the war debt with high taxes.
And we borrow the money from China. So that we don’t have to pay taxes.
Which brings us back to the beginning.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I must say Larry, of the super rich whom I work for, $13,000/year wont pay for much of their expenses, it wont pay for one groom’s salary. These people spend $10,000/week per horse, (most of them have several) at a big horse show and they have never worked a day in their life and never will. If they fly to Europe the expenses increase considerably.
I was actually referring to, although I have no way of knowing, since I don’t really become involved with my customers finances, the seeming likelihood of grown children being placed on boards for a small amount of work and a large salary. This is all hypothetical, but I have dealt with many of the wealthiest people in the world and understand the way they do business, at least with me. In the nineties, I worked for about 10% of the Forbes list for the world and even more for this country, some of them didn’t ever see me, their bean counters dealt with me as a rule, but not always. It is a fairly tight run world, with very little that isn’t kept track of and accounted for, I was a necessary nuisance, nothing more; again, getting money from these people will not be easy, no matter what the rules are, they want the best for their dependents as a rule, but not always. They have mansions for their horses and designated parking for people like myself.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Bill Gates knew the government was intending to destroy him, so he crossed over. Pelosi and Kerry married money. Larry, what you call selfish, I call success.
@Skook: Well, if you put your kids on a board and pay them a salary, then their salary will be taxed, and the current marginal rate is 35%, same as the estate tax rate, same as the gift tax rate. So there’s really nowhere to hide. At least, there’s no way to hide out in the open.
One other thing about the Gift Tax, just to be relatively complete. There’s no limit at all to the amount which can go to pay someone else’s educational or medical expenses, as long as the check is made out directly to the school, hospital, doctor, etc. That’s all tax free.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Larry: You said:
???
Seriously? ROFLMAO
The Chinese give one whit about our tax rates in what alternate reality? And don’t give me that crap about more revenue. That horse has been beat to death.
It is also difficult to ask the country to bite the bullet and accept austerity, while its leader is living life to the max and enjoying the best life has to offer. This is a matter of common sense, that was ignored by the administration.
I feel that we have purposely been sanitized from the effects of the wars. Of what sacrifice have any of us paid for the war effort, I remember my grandparents talking of contributing metal and wool for the war effort. We live a life of luxury; if we need tires we buy them, my relatives packed tires with straw when they would no longer hold air, because there were no tires to buy. Families were expected to have a victory garden, s that the vegetables from the farms could feed our troops. We pursue our daily interests as if a war wasn’t happening, for only 2% percent of us even know someone who has been in the war and our troops are deployed 4 and 5 times so that we can avoid a draft. There has been too much political expediency in the prosecution of these wars to make them palatable for the general public.
They no longer want me, but I could do some clerical work for a month or two, relieving someone else for duties in the field or some time at home, and it is the same with you, an MD who could provide a vital service somewhere. We are asking way too much of too few, in my opinion and taking advantage of their patriotism while the rest of the country skates through a war with no ill effects. Why did the government ask for metal and wool? To offset the cost of the war. Yet we contribute nothing. I feel as if I should do more and I am making a pledge to myself, to spend time at the veterans hospitals reading to groups, ( they used to like me to read bible passages in church because of my voice and inflection) or doing whatever I can, upon my retirement, that elusive goal, that unfortunately, might never happen.
Reason Larry it’s, “Tax free” for such donations is the fact the Local, State or Federal Government now knows not to allocate a certain ammount monies to such education or medical centers that get tax payer funding due to private investments into such firms from donations filling gaps in budget so the Government can reallocate the monies to more needed areas (such as rebuilding crumbling water/sewer systems for example…). This is a reward program to get people to directly support various social infrastructures. The citizen is still out of that money, the mere difference is the citizen has far more power to direct where and how his or her money is spent.
In the case of the, “Death Tax” losing almost 50 percent of an Estate’s value upon the holder’s death to Government is a very touchy and very angry issue with majority of people as the property and monies collected in the Estate’s name has already been previously taxed at least 2 times (sometimes 3.) and in the case of property composing the Estate inflicted by annual taxation. This sorta angers people who worked for their homes and family.
@anticsrocks: Extending the Bush tax cuts will require us to borrow an additional $2.1 trillion. Cut taxes, cut revenue. Raise taxes, raise revenue. That’s what all the data show. That’s even what Mata’s data showed. The treasury permanently loses a minimum of 70 cents in unrecovered revenue for every dollar in taxes cut.
Why didn’t McConnell and Boehner try to sell the tax cut extensions on the basis that this would reduce our debt burden? They didn’t — because it wouldn’t. Quite the opposite. As everyone agrees.
There was a wonderful PBS interview show, with David Stockman and Eric Cantor, on the tax cut extension. Stockman attributed nearly all of our economic woes to tax cuts necessitating borrowing; Cantor kept maintaining that we “needed” to keep the tax cuts and kept ducking the borrowing issue. Why didn’t he come right out and say, “look, if we don’t extend the tax cuts, we’ll actually have to borrow MORE.” ? Because he knows it would be a ludicrous claim. No one believes that stuff anymore. The GOP economic theory is no longer “tax cuts increase tax revenue,” but “we need to keep taxes low and low tax rates will eventually starve the beast enough to lower our spending.”
It’s a nice theory, but “starve the beast” is just as discredited a theory as the Laffer Curve. Why, because it’s much easier to borrow money from China than it is to starve the beast.
I’ll try to see if I can find the video link on the PBS website. It’s very instructive.
@Mr Irons:
You’ve got to remember that the first $10,000,000 (couple) and $5,000,000 (single) is tax free. It’s only the amount beyond that which is taxed at 35%.
It’s not any form of “double taxation.” It’s taxed once. You enjoy the money during your life. And then you die. Did you ever hear of the expression “you can’t take it with you?” That’s true. You can’t take with you the money that you earned and paid taxes on and had left over when you die. So you give $5 million of it to your heirs ($10 million, for a couple) and, beyond that, you give them 65%.
The estate tax has always served to work against the emergence of a large, permanently endowed upper class. That’s what both Adam Smith and Teddy Roosevelt felt was such societal curse. The permanently endowed upper class.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach. CA
Therein lies the continued flaw of your thinking. Tax cuts do not “necessitate” borrowing. Spending more than anticipated revenue stream does.
Please put the blame where it belongs, and stop advocating government theft to support their spending addiction.
It has been historicaly proven that raised taxes do not produce raised Revenue, the only exception of this ideal was World War I with the various Businesses within the United States having little to no where else to go to operate and a heavy handed movement from President Willson’s administration. All other times, even World War 2, higher taxes have lead to lower revenues.
As for the “tax cuts” and borrowing? My my how you ignore the Clinton years, that was the onset of major borrowing from the Chinese. Even if such cuts were to expire, we would still not be able to generate enough revenue to remotely pay for the programs the 111th and now 112th Congress have for plans. We need to borrow just to cover various bloated welfare programs alone.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Larry, scroll down the page a bit to see what I had to say…. #126
Something was screwy and my partially completed comment was posted twice.
The completed one is further down.
@Mr Irons: You missed my debate with Mata. It’s too much work to do it all over again.
Since 1980, there have been myriad tweaks to the tax code which have either (1) raised tax rates or (2) reduced tax rates. In every case, the tweaks which raised tax rates increased revenues, while those which reduced tax rates reduced revenues. Reagan’s signature tax cuts led to a massive loss in revenue. Yes, total tax collections went up, but they always go up, as the GDP always goes up, if only because the population always goes up. The only time the GDP goes down is during a recession, when tax collections do fall. But tax cuts cost the treasury a minimum of 70 cents on the dollar, and this lost revenue must be made up in increased borrowing.
@Aye: Back l8r. Thanks.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Larry, just how is it you think the GDP rises? Just because more may, or may not enter the workforce? No… it’s because the private sector – not the public sector – takes off and creates wealth by creating product (unlike the government, which produces nothing….).
Again I will say you stick to a simplistic view with “reduced tax rates/reduced revenues” argument. Compared to what they would have taken in if they didn’t reduce revenues? Perhaps. But that’s not an appropriate measure, but it’s one you stick to in order to make your point, and to also continually mischaracterize mine.
Fact is Reagan, inheriting serious depression days, came into office with a GDP of $3126.8 billion in 1981. When he left office in 1989, it was up to $5482.1 in billions… an increase of $2355.3 billion, or a 42.96% increase of the GDP over his two terms… during recession years… using the income tax cuts/tax code tweaking. His policies stimulated growth in a deplorable economy and the GDP did not “go down”.
In fact, the GDP didn’t even “go down” during Carter’s recession. He came in with $2030.1 bil in 1977, and left at the end of 1980 with $2788.1. An increase of $758 bill, or 27.18%.
On the flip side, Clinton enjoyed the dot.com bubble, and the onset of the housing bubble. His only war spending were his little diversionary hit and runs, and also had a GOP Congress to rein him in. In short, he enjoyed a “camelot” economic boom. Yet he started with $6667.4 in billions in 1993. With his tax increases, combined with his code tweaking, he did not grow the GDP to the extent that Reagan policies did. Clinton left in 2000 with $9951.5 billion, an increase of $3284.1 billion, or 33% increase in the GDP.
Let me repeat that. Despite two bubbles, no 911/Wall Street shut down and no major overseas conflicts, Clinton’s tax increase policies, combined with his tax code cuts (aimed at the lowest economic sector, which wouldn’t stimulate the economy), only resulted in a 33% increase in the GDP in a time of “camelot” economic conditions.
Thanks… I’ll take Reagan’s economic growth of the private sector record any day.
BTW, a few more GDP factoids…
Reagan’s first two years had a .039% GDP growth in a recession. By his third year, he doubled that amount in that year alone. As a reminder, Reagan’s big tax cuts were in 1981.
Obama’s first two years had .025% GDP growth in a recession. It can be argued that the majority of that was taxpayer infused cash.
Bush’s overall two term growth was 28.77%… with no camelot economy. 911, two wars, inherited recession, and a housing bubble burst.
SKOOKUM, hi, yes I like what you mentionned on the warzone being ingnore by the majority,
or taken for granted, saying ;IT’s their job to do it, and even for some radicals to block the efforts of the military by way of MEDIA explaining their own idiotic logic of how they should extend the war by talking to an ennemie whose only knowledge is to hate and destroy our own people:
A good question that you bring on to all of us, what are we doing for the war effort?
like those previous years the whole country was doing something to boost the moral of the troops
and help on every way, there was jobs in armement big enterprise and every little bit would make the troops know they where loved and followed with one country’s mind,
what are we doing today? even that our way of communication has improved 100%.
thank you, bye
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
It took me a bit of reading to discover what Smith was speaking of here. Having done that reading I discovered that he was not, as you allude, referring to the taxation of estates and inheritances.
He was, instead referring to “entails and primogeniture” which were practices of inheritance, specifically of land. These practices worked to tie the hands of the heirs and bind them to the will of their predecessors.
Primogeniture passed estates to the first born, to the exclusion of the other heirs. Entails allowed those passing the estate along to bind it up from beyond the grave.
For example, entails would allow John Smith to leave his land to his son Joe ” ‘and the heirs of his body’ or some similar language with a specific legal meaning.” Through this practice a property owner could restrict who owned the property and how it was to be used for generations to come. Entails created a situation whereby those who inherited had lifetime use of a piece of property but they never really “owned” it. Their relationship to the land was more of a tenancy.
We see the same sort of thing that Smith was referring to still going on right here in modern day America. An acquaintance of ours owns quite a large amount of land. He has placed that land under conservation easement which, effectively, binds it up in perpetuity. The land cannot ever be subdivided. Development is extremely restricted. Buffer zones are established around all property boundaries. His four sons will eventually inherit the land but they, and other future generations, will never be allowed to exercise their free will in using or developing it because the conservation easements go on and on perpetually.
Teddy may have been in favor of an inheritance tax before the income tax and all of the other zillions of taxes that have already been paid on the property and money that is being handed down.
I seriously doubt that he would have been in favor of an estate tax on top of everything else.
Not sure how your logic works here Larry.
The person who earned the money originally, either through sweat of brow, investment, or ingenuity, paid taxes on that money when it was earned. Then, if it was invested, either in real estate or a financial investment vehicle, taxes were paid on the growth (interest, etc) of the original dollars.
To have the gov’t swoop in after Grampa dies and skim their share off the top after already feeding at that trough of assets is indeed double taxation.
That’s really my biggest beef with the estate tax. The taxes have already been paid on that money. The gov’t has collected taxes on the interest or other growth of that money.
Now, when the person dies, the gov’t is entitled to skim off another 35% or 65% or whatever the rate is?
openid.aol.com/runnswim, hi, we must not forget that It’s not comparable to other ways of presidents,
because you are dealing with an explosion of illegals crossing the border, coming from many poor and for some anti AMERICA ideology, and mid term immigrants who get all the benefits of what is to be given to AMERICANS in need, this is now the reality of where the moneys go, many abuse the system,
or hide in the system and take for granted what is being given to help, that should have never been meant as a forever donation. don’t compare just ask for redressing the wrong GOVERNMENT’s policys
and if it’s done ,[if ], you will see, an adjustment of where the tax should go that is back in the pockets of the people
One good thing about Larry constantly repeating his disproven tax theories is that we have folks like Mata and Aye to point out how wrong he is. It can be quite an education.
@Larry: You said:
70 cents on the dollar? Really? How in the blue hell would this be proven?
Because we did not extend ANY tax cuts. We extended the tax rates and prevented a tax increase. When you leave things at the status quo, how can you argue that it will reduce anything?? What they wanted to avoid was a tax increase on the American public.
I was going to rebut your sad, incorrect tax theories, but Mata and Aye did a fine job. I will only say that my understanding of tax policy reflects Mata’s to a great degree. When you let the private sector have more of the money they work damned hard to earn, then the economy grows because that money is not tied up by a bloated, over sized government that seemingly only wants to “redistribute” it.
Why should anyone work that extra bit, only to have the government decide that it can spend that money better than the private sector does? In other words, why would any business expand, any private citizen work harder if they know that at that next tax bracket they will be considered “rich” and are going to have their private property and fruits of their labor confiscated? When you over tax, you remove incentive.
When JFK and Reagan cut taxes, the economy boomed. When Bush 43 cut taxes, despite 9/11 the economy vastly improved.
Don’t know where he got that either, anticsrocks. That sure wasn’t in the 2006 study. He tends to blend things he thinks I said along with things he keeps saying, as if they were one. But no doubt some brilliant undergrad journalist pulled that figure out of the air, and posted it in Wiki.
The way Larry looks at this, is that if the government were collecting $1.00, then gave you a 30% tax cut, it’s “unrecovered revenue”. Meaning that as long as that 30% of cash isn’t stolen for government coffers, it’s counted as lost revenue, and that there is never enough measurable growth in business to make up for that supposed “loss”. First if all, it’s a notion that requires the assumption that the government owns your earnings, and is being gracious not stealing as much of it. Since he and I differ from that base assessment, there’s always an impossibility in the debate. Secondly, to know that requires the ability to travel parallel universes, to see how the economy responded under two sets of rules at the same moment in time.
Ergo, using that same flawed thinking, even when the economy and GDP grows, Larry will still see it as “lost revenue” because it will always be cash the government is not collecting as long as that policy is in place.
@anticsrocks, #132:
The Bush tax cuts were not supposed to become the new status quo. There was concern ten years ago that they would result in an even more rapid growth of the national debt, so an expiration date was built in to the legislation. They had exactly that effect, and the national debt was doubled in only 8 years. An identical effect was demonstrated during the years of the Reagan administration. During that initial experiment the national debt was tripled.
What does it take to refute the illogical assertion that reducing taxes increases revenue? The idea runs contrary to common sense, and the common sense-conclusion has been supported by consistent real-world results–results that have rapidly accumulated to the tune of nearly $14 trillion dollars.
Once solution seems to boil down to letting the nation’s crumbling infrastructure collapse completely, to remain locked in to an increasingly shakey fossil-fuel energy technology, to let large components of the national economy collapse without intervention, and ultimately to eliminate long-standing social programs that have well-serve the great majority of the nation’s population for generations.
I find that “solution” totally unacceptable. It’s the road to wide-spread misery and national decline. If it takes a more agressively progressive tax schedule to avoid it, so be it. It’s no coincidence that the lowest taxes since the 1950s have coincided with the most rapidly growing debt in history.
@Greg: You said:
Wrong.
You also said:
This is also wrong. The national debt was doubled under Bush because conservatives (both in Congress and the White House) strayed from their small government, fiscally conservative roots. In other words, they acted like Democrats. During Reagan’s tenure, the DEMOCRATICALLY controlled Congress just couldn’t seem to stop spending all that extra revenue that Reagan’s tax policies brought into the coffers.
You further said:
Oh my. Where do I begin? First of all, of course you don’t understand that when the private sector gets to keep more of their own money, then the economy booms. But that is lost on you because you view the fruits of labor of the private sector as belonging to the government. When you start from that illogical and flawed premise, of course cutting taxes to raise revenue is incomprehensible to you. You suffer from the same mental health condition that Larry does – you are a far left liberal. Sorry.
As for the 14$ trillion in debt? Well you can thank your hero, Obama for the vast majority of that. He spent in 20 months in office what Bush did in EIGHT FRIGGIN’ YEARS!!
Obama raised discretionary spending a whopping 84% his first year in office if you include the failed stimulus spending, 24% if you do not.
The EPA budget increased by – wait for it…wait for it…
ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY FOUR PERCENT! – Source
Yes, that’s correct, the EPA’s budget increased 124%. But you want to blame the debt on Bush?????
Interesting.
To pile on with anticsrocks attempt to educate Greg, who is under the impression that there was some noble, lofty goal about a sunset provision… sigh…. Apparently you prefer to attach emotions to events instead of looking at actual Senate debate rules on legislation that affects the deficient when it’s passed via the more liberal reconciliation methods.
We’ve been here and done this before. I pointed this out on Dec 7th,…. then Aye pointed the same out a week later… and now antiscrocks today. Hopefully, after three times repeating ourselves, you might get enough curiousity to read up on the Byrd Rule and “sunset provision”, as it relates to Senate rules and legislation mandates. The “expiration date” is due to the rules, not some emotional cautionary flag you think was raised.
My, such run on thoughts. Yes, what anticsrocks said, plus a bit more for you to chew on.
The feds, or even state and local governments are fully dependent upon citizen worker taxpayers to subsist. They create nothing but debt. When they “spend”, adding their small contributions to the growth of the GDP, it is because they buy tangible products or services from the private sector to manufacture product for government use. They are utterly dependent upon the private sector for everything… from feeding their budgets, to implementing any federal agency’s agenda. To note just how small their contribution as public sector is, you need only remember that virtually an entire nation – busy building vehicle, weapons etal to support the WWII war effort under Truman – resulted in very small GDP growth in those years. Nor did the two wars with Bush, and their Pentagon contracts, add much to his GDP growth.
Therefore, the nation’s GDP growth primarily lies with the health of the private sector and, as a byproduct, the government’s health primarily lies with the health of the private sector. Our government, just like US families in the past 2-3 decades, has been living primarily on credit cards since the New Deal days. It is a piper that has to be paid, just as any family has overextended themselves with credit does.
When you put high tax demands on the private sector… all the while increasing the federal payroll and Congressional spending… you are chopping the lifeline to future tax revenue. Does “blood from a turnip” sound familiar? Which is why the economy, vis a vis the GDP growth, took off under Reagan. He fueled private sector growth, and under extremely difficult conditions. Back in those days, mortgage rates were 13-18%. Carter left us with high energy costs, and lines to gas stations with rationing. Yet even under these conditions, Reagan fueled the private sector.
It is Reaganesque policies that Obama’s bipartisan deficit commission recommended, and that Obama has decided to ignore.
Now perhaps the difference between us, and you and Larry, is that you measure the health of the “economy” by how much money the government is able to abscond. I don’t. When the economy is healthy, and the private sector majority portion of the GDP grows, the government will take in more revenue. When the electorate is flush, the government becomes more flush because they always skim off the top.
What you and Larry are doing is playing the numbers game… i.e. weighing how much the the government skims via legislative tax policy vs what you both believe the government *should* be skimming via legislative tax policy. Hey, I *should* be paid a lot more for my skills, but I’m not. So I’m losing revenue. It’s that inane an approach.
This is because you both share the same problem. You think the cure to the annual deficit and the nation’s debt is to just steal more money. Little do you both realize that the more you steal, the less there will be to steal tomorrow.
The anticipated tax revenues is what should drive any budget, just like you in your personal budget attempt not to spend more than your income that year. Herein lies the prickly argument of “balanced budget” mandates. Since the Congress and admin have a hard time reining in their spending, which requires them to steal more taxpayer cash, all a balanced budget mandate would do is provide legal license for government theft to meet their spending demands.
I suggest the alternative is the budget must be no more than 10-15% lower than anticipated revenues for any given year.
I think that they know their AGENDA, and It is to willingly slowly get rid of the CAPITALIST and
CREATIVE will of the SELFMADE ENTREPENEURS to advance in riches and therefor create jobs for the people of AMERICA only, NO they want to be the sole employer the major job giver,
despite the expanses they encounter on the back of a suffering nation and STATES also,
look at what vilain they became when GOVERNER made her law to take care of her problem which the GOVERNMENT was suppose to do under the CONSTITUTION, and look at their protection over the UNIONS, they broke a big AMERICAN COMPANY in order to take over on the excuse to save the
the unions jobs,and they spend AMERICA’S money AND they borrow more from CHINA and are still spending it to keep their CONTROL over the nation , YES he said it HIMSELF ,he is changing AMERICA
AND IT’s scary to see that they still have the support of some ignorant and some adorator of the image they try so hard to project.
@MataHarley, #137:
Uh huh. But why did the bill need to be passed in a manner that required that those rules be applied? Quite simply, because democratic concern about resulting deficits prevented republicans from putting the Bush tax cuts into effect in any other way. The application of sunset rules was deliberate and purposeful–not some sort of procedural accident. It’s as if we want to pretend that the controversy centering on fiscal responsibility that originally surrounded the Bush tax cut proposals never existed, and that it’s not the same fiscal responsibility controversy that still exists. Repetition doesn’t change the facts.
From the Wikipedia entry on the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001:
Section 901 of Public Law 107-16, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 as passed:
Still don’t get it, eh Greg? Wiki offers a somewhat bizarre view of the Byrd Rule, but that’s what you get when you turn to such sources for your education. My suggestion is you read a more accurate version of history and original intent for the Byrd Rule from the CRS reports. And before you go all gun ho, whining about GOP abuses, it may interest you to know that the reconciliation process has been used 23 times since 1980. Twenty of these were enacted into law, three of which were veto’ed by Clinton.
Out of those original 23, eighteen were when the Byrd Rule (and or subsequent amendments) was in force, and 14 of them evoked Byrd Rule protests.
Out of all of these reconciliation procedures… all budget related as they have to be… only nine of the measures came from a GOP controlled Congress. Two of those from the GOP were veto’ed by Clinton, and they didn’t have that convenient supermajority to override a veto. So the GOP has only used this process seven times with success. The rest? That’s your heroes, Greg.
And I’ll get to the sunset provision in a sec..
The Byrd Rule was originally passed to curb the abuse of adding extraneous issues to budget bills’ process. Especially since budgetary bills have limited debate time on the Senate floor. Extraneous, meaning provisions that had no budgetary effect; that increased spending or reduced revenues when the reconciliation instructions called for reduced spending or increased revenues; or infringed upon a committee’s jurisdiction. Senators can either deal with these extraneous issues via the amendment process, or they can raise a point of order under the Byrd Rule to strike those provisions. They can even opt to waive the Byrd Rule, which doesn’t happen often. All of these take 3/5th majority vote… that magic number of 60.
The GOP did not have the 60 supermajority that the Dems have enjoyed during their spending frenzy in the past years.
Thus, the sunset provision was “deliberate and purposeful” to the extent that it didn’t make that particular issue in the 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act – which was the gradual phasing out of federal estate tax, and not the tax rates – conflicting with Byrd Rules. Problem solved. And actually, I don’t think we should be making tax policies permanent. I believe different economic trends make for different evaluations, and I don’t want those bozos to have to make another law. Personally, I think tax legislation should be reviewed every 5-10 years, and more often if the economy warrants it. So I wouldn’t want a permanent low tax rate any more than I’d want a permanent high tax rate.
Now, I said I’d get to the sunset provision, which seems to have your knickers in an indignant twist. First of all, this sunset provision goes back in our history to the late 1700s. But the GOP has been trying to get the sunset provision repealed since 2005. Another sunset provision, used by the Dems (which they hated to have to put in) was the Assault Weapon Ban as part of their Omnibus Act. Now’s the time you should be asking yourself just what did the AWB have to do with the deficit. But will you? Probably not…. Yes, the Dem sleaze by example has been a lesson well learned by the GOP for their brief time in power. At least the GOP used it to keep cash in the pockets of taxpayers, while the Dems used it to infringe upon a Constitutional amendment.
And, in fact, the Byrd Rule itself has many critics in both chambers, and from both parties.
So… if you’re all in an uproar about reconciliation, budget and sunset provisions, I suggest you do some house cleaning in your party, since they are the biggest users and proponents of these procedures. And in fact, the most heineous example of it’s abuse was between Dec 2009 and Mar 2010 for O’healthcare. Gnaw on that little factoid for awhile, then get back to us when you’ve placed your disdain on to the proper party.
To the first part, about *why* the bill needed to be passed in such a manner…. duh. Because the GOP never enjoyed the majority numbers that the Dems had from 2007 until Jan 2011. Therefore, even if every GOP voted for the 2001 Economic Growth Act, they still needed Dem defectors to sign on to the bill. Since it’s legislation ripe for the reconciliation process, and because they spent a couple of decades learning the sleazier tricks the Dems used to play the game, they just used their rules and methods. Hurts, don’t it?
However in the case of O’healthcare, it has never been used to implement such a monster entitlement package, and even with their big majority numbers, they couldn’t even get most of their own Dems to the feeding trough without bribery.
Sorry Greg, You still don’t get the point. The reason that they used reconciliation is because the Democrats were against ANY tax cuts. So since the GOP didn’t have the filibuster proof majority, they passed the cuts with a sunset rather than no cuts at all.
I suppose your reading comprehension skills have slipped, either that or you just want to live in some liberal fantasy world where you get to bend the facts until they fit your perception of reality.
Oh, and by the way…
@anticsrocks, #135:
…when have republicans behaved otherwise? All they ever stray from are their promises and rhetoric. I’ve heard the same fiscal responsibility, downsize government campaign pitch again and again, Reagan onward, but haven’t once seen it put into practice. Instead, spending and government have expanded. The only difference is where the spending is directed and who benefits from it. What always accompanies those expansions is a push to reduce the tax revenue coming in that’s needed to pay for them. The only recent addendum to the time-honored pitch is “This time we really mean it”–followed by an exclamation mark.
Democrats may be “tax and spend”, but they at least seem to recognize the fact that spending must be paid for.
Yeah right…. had a look at the spending that’s not paid for since 2007, and especially since 2009?
Greg, have a read, then try to repeat the statement about “spending must be paid for” with a straight face…
Oh yes, and don’t attempt to pull a “Larry” on us, and tell us that’s all TARP… of which Obama and Pelosi/Reid were in charge of half of those funds on their watch. Not to mention the TARP allocations don’t come anywhere close to adding up to these figures.
@Greg:
Which is why, of course, Presidebt Obie and his always, always fiscally responsible compadres in Congress immediately raised taxes to help offset their spending binge.
Oh, wait….
@Greg: You said:
Which is why Pelosi and Co. totally ignored PayGo after they instituted it…
Really Greg, you make this TOO easy.
I know a lot of people want to pin it all on Obama. This New York Times chart based on an analysis of CBO data suggests otherwise.
Consider where we were and the direction we were headed at the point President Obama walked in the door. Do the same with regard to President Bush. Compare and contrast to your heart’s content.
The chart is probably a bit out of date, not taking the recent 2-year extension of the Bush Tax Cuts into consideration. I suppose we can add that portion of the blame to Obama’s total. The extension will increase deficits and add to our total debt, exactly as the cuts did in the past.
This is the Wikipedia entry that the chart appears in, btw.
Well now I see where Greg and Larry get their warped views on tax policy. That Wiki article is nothing but a slobbering love fest to Keynesian economics.
Believe what you want, Greg. No matter what is discussed, Mata is right. You operate on the premise that all private sector monies produced belong to the government. So any tax cut is nearly as scary to you as Sarah Palin.
Sad, really that you cannot see past your ideology.
Dear antics: I beg your pardon, but I did not get my “warped” view on tax policy from wikipedia, and I don’t want you stating that I did. Over several threads, I have supported my arguments with data (including from a major study cited by Mata), as well as a broad spectrum of conservative economists. There is nothing “Keynesian” about my analysis of the direct relationship between tax cuts and debt — where all tax cuts of the past 30 years have increased debt and necessitated increased borrowing.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Well, if I erred it was in where you got your ideas on tax policy and not that your ideas are warped. I am well aware of how you look at the government’s role in taxing it’s citizens.
For you to allude that your ideas are anything near conservative is ludicrous. I mean I could go back and dig up some of the different things you have said, but I’m too tired for the effort. Anyone who followed the various debates between you and Mata know that you are Keynesian in your views. Otherwise you wouldn’t see a tax cut as a disastrous thing.
Tax cuts don’t cause debt. Spending more than is taken in is what causes debt. Not hard to figure out.
*yawn* I am tired, good night Larry.
@Greg:
I took a look at the chart you linked and two things immediately leapt out at me:
1) The chart reflects the mythical Clinton Surplus. That argument has been destroyed over and over here at FA.
2) Take a look at the figure the chart calls “Obama Stimulus”. It shows only $145B when we all know that the price tag for the ARRA was actually a minimum of $787B.
Seems to me that the chart information is dishonest to say the least.
There’s that “necessitated increased borrowing” phrase, blaming it on tax cuts instead of the real culprit, not reducing spending, again.
That the government continually chooses to put a tax policy adjustment on credit cards is the problem, Larry. The tax policy adjustment is not the problem.
Trends… trends… trends. And look at those trends in the context of the economic conditions of each era.
The 2006 study provided charts for revenue related to tax bills only, and did not include the phased in long term effects of those bills. Yet there was a marked trend of an increase in federal revenues under Reagan, and you chose only to see that anything that was a cut resulted in less revenue collected, and anything that was an increase resulted in more revenue collected.
Well duh… no brainer. If I rob your safe where you keep cash, you have a million in there, and I take half a million, I’m certainly not making as much as if I take it all, am I?
As I pointed out to you in a subsequent comment, if we are playing your debate rules, where money not stolen is “lost revenue”, then we can look at the Reagan tax policies cumulative as a loss of $76 billion over his two terms. (This was using the figures provided in that 2006 study on pages 16). Evaluating the numbers for Clinton ‘s terms showed he lost $45 billion…. all this using your measuring stick. Ain’t that inconvenient? And considering that’s figures not accommodating for a deflated dollar, it becomes worse for your 1990s hero.
Federal revenues are only applicable to the deficit and debt… a ratio that fluctuates and changes when compared to spending. The revenues have always fluctuated up and done. The spending, however, continues to rise and they pay no heed to the revenues except to figure out how to convince us we want to give them more and still keep their cushy jobs… all so they can (unwisely) spend more.
Therein lies our problem… the spending. Yet this has nothing to do with how tax policies affect the economic growth of the nation.
@As I pointed out above, The GDP growth % under Reagan and his policies is far superior to Clinton and his policies. Obama has chosen to ignore his debt commission’s recommendations to return to something closer to Reagan’s approach… lower income taxes and less tax credits and business breaks. Instead, he’s getting up on the dais, pointing his nose in the air while he once again tries to sell spending… but this time avoiding “spending” and “stimulus” terms, but using “investments” instead.
We’ll see if the nation, and the newly elected Congress is dumb enough to buy into that one.
This is a bizarre statement that I wanted to address spending. Keynesian economics is is a theory of total spending in the economy (aka aggregate demand) and its effects on output, employment and inflation. Both monetary and fiscal policies, and spending, do have an effect on output (sometimes positively and negatively), and for any Keynesian theory to work, it depends upon prices and consumption to be rigid in nature.
Therefore, I don’t consider your particular beliefs to be Keynesian since I don’t see anything in your commentary that assumes prices remain rigid as a result of policy…. except, perhaps some in your analysis of O’healthcare and premium prices. But that’s another story.
Nor does the Keynesian theory focus on deficit and debt, but on inflation and short run employment results… i.e. his famous statement, “In the long run, we are all dead.”
Where you may be demonstrating Keynesian traits is the more commonly associated advocation of aggressive government action to stabilize the economy. This is assuming the government is capable of improving on the free market.
There is nothing Keynesian about you to suggest that continually raising taxes to support a government’s nasty habit of spending more than anticpated revenues is a solution.
We all agree that there is a direct relationship between tax policies (increases or decreases) and deficit debt. Again, a no brainer. If you make less income, you have less to spend, and you must rein in your expenses to accommodate. American households deal with this reality every day since we don’t have money presses in our basements. Unlike the government, we can’t fall back on robbing the next door neighbor, printing cash, or borrowing from abroad to mask our declining income which will not cover our increasing expenditures.
But you always give the most important equation of that triangle – the spending – a pass. You whine about the debt, insist upon increasing the taxes, and allow the spending to go on, unfettered.
That’s not Keynesian. That’s just plain foolhardy.
@mata:
When did I ever advocate “continually raising taxes?” I advocate having taxes be in balance with spending. You actually succeed in cutting spending? Fine; reward yourself with a tax cut. But don’t cut taxes first and then borrow money to pay for the tax cuts. It’s conservative to pay for tax cuts with spending cuts. It’s anything but conservative to pay for tax cuts with borrowed money.
Keynesian economics is the government taking actions to increase the money supply. You do this in three ways: (1) Fed prints more money; (2) government borrows money to finance increase spending, (3) government borrows money to finance tax cuts.
You say that tax cuts pay for themselves, in that they generate increased GDP which, in turn, generates more taxes. This was a very fine theory, back in 1980. There’s nothing wrong with believing in a rational theory. Global warming from human-generated atmospheric carbon is a rational theory.
But, at a certain point, a theory has to be tested. The theory that tax cuts pay for themselves has been tested and has been utterly discredited.
Why don’t you find me a contemporary (as in post 2007) economist who provides a cogent defense for the theory that tax cuts pay for themselves. I don’t want your arm chair analysis of raw data. You’ve been wrong on that, virutally every time you’ve tried to do it.
You’ve asserted that the “trend” for revenue was steeper for Reagan than for Clinton. You were wrong. You said that you 2006 study showed that Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue, rather than cutting revenue. You were wrong.
Look at this:
http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/page/2/
And NO, the “GDP growth %” was not far superior under Reagan’s policies than under Clinton’s:
http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges-charts/page/8/
People who are used to evaluating graphs like this should be able to see that there was an upward slope to the revenue trend line which flattened substantially, following Reagan’s signature tax cuts. You can see that the trend line steepened after Clinton’s tax increases.
But this is just armchair analysis by me, an amateur, and you, an amateur. Why don’t you find a contemporary academic, or think tank guru, or Fed economist who has analyzed the data and who makes the case that tax cuts pay for themselves. I’ve already cited 10 conservative economists who assert the opposite: that tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves and, therefore, necessitate increased borrowing from China in order to make up the shortfall.
The reason that I am a CONSERVATIVE, economically-speaking, is that I believe in a (reasonably) balanced budget. I believe in paying my own bills. I believe the the USA is a stronger country when we don’t borrow money from foreign nations. For 30 years, the other discredited economic policy we’ve been following is “starve the beast.” This has never worked. Not once. Just as tax cuts have never worked, with regard to paying for themselves.
It takes no political courage to give voters a tax cut and pay for it by borrowing money from China. But it’s an economically bankrupt policy and it’s a morally bankrupt policy.
With respect to Aye’s exposition regarding deficits versus surplus, what’s important isn’t “gross debt;” it’s the ratio of gross debt to GDP. This exploded under the policies of Reagan and Bush; this came down during the higher tax policies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Clinton.
What matters is the growth of the debt, relative to the growth of the economy. When the economy is growing faster than the debt, there’s no problem at all. A great many American corporations carry a lot of debt. As long as their business is growing faster than their debt, there is no problem. When the debt grows faster than the business; it’s a huge problem. Same for individuals. Same for the government.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
In every comment INRE the deficit, you advocate raising taxes, Larry. You never demand a cut in spending. Even now, you demand increasing taxes first, then cut taxes (presumably back down to where they were before you raised them?) as a “reward” IF the government doesn’t increase it’s spending.
Has the government ever decreased it’s spending in our recent history, Larry? Cart before the horse. As long as they have the taxpayer ATM, and printing presses at their disposal, they will not cut spending. They need to be forced into that behavior, and it’s long overdue.
Number 3 is incorrect, and only serves to demonstrate your flawed approach once again. Our government borrows money to finance spending. Not stealing additional taxpayer cash is NOT spending. You cannot equate the two, save with your notion that all a taxpayers earnings is fair game for government to take at will. And Keynesian economics is not just about monetary policy, but fiscal policies. You left out a large equation of the theory.
Please point out any single comment where I have said “tax cuts pay for themselves”. Those words have never been uttered from my keyboard, so I can save you some valuable time. I do agree that adjustments in tax policies need to be accompanied by spending cuts. “Borrowing” is not the fault of taxpayers. It is the fault of a government who refuses to stop spending.
Nor did I state that “tax cuts” generate increased GDP. What I said was tax POLICY, which incorporates tweaking and fine tuning of a wide range of tax policies (and includes lowering the income rates in Reagan’s case), will stimulate the economic growth of the company. The GDP history reflects that.
Then I have to wonder why you tout Obama’s handling of the economy as wonderful. The debt via stimulus, piled on by the growth of federal government/agencies vastly outpaces an economy that faces double dip ramifications. Corporations that enjoyed stimulus money benefits now see that gravy train ending, and the layoffs again begin… of which Hanford, WA serves as a prime example.
No arguments with you there. My argument is your repeated suggestion solution of higher tax rates, which does anything BUT grow business and economic productivity. Lower rates stimulate the economy, and need to be implemented in tandem with spending reductions. But then, Obama’s not headed that way, is he? Tomorrow will bring talk of more spending, disguised as “investments”.
Higher tax policies of Kennedy?
@antics: Kennedy cut marginal tax rates from 91% to 70%. GOP calls Kennedy a tax cutter. Obama (and Greenspan) want to raise marginal rate back to where they were under Clinton (all the way from 35% to 39%) and he’s a socialist.
There’s a Goldilocks zone with taxes, as with everything else. Even you must concede that the government does need some taxes, to pay the military, for example. It’s just a matter of balancing taxing with spending. Spend less and cut taxes. That’s conservative. Cut taxes without cutting spending. That’s irresponsible.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I might say, that the way they have done has already doom their party for the economy to rise in jobs because the busnesses have lost faith in their GOVERNMENT, and this is not going to get better,
no matter what they do from now on, next year will there be hope ? that the people will decide to play a role in electing the ones who are busyness frendly.
@Mata: It’s not true that I haven’t advocated cutting spending. For example, I endorsed the recommendations of the Debt Commission, which were about 2/3 spending cuts and 1/3 tax increases. I’ve given my “formula” for cutting Social Security: Increase retirement age to 70; eliminate cap on maximum contribution per year; means test beneficiaries. My “formula” for reducing Medicare spending is to pay for outcomes, as opposed to paying for billable hours and the like (n.b. there’s $10B in ObamaCare to explore ways to do just that). I’d also scale back military spending, along the lines suggested by the deficit commission.
When the government has ongoing expenses, and you cut taxes without reducing the expenses, you are borrowing money to increase the money supply, which is every bit as much of a Keynesian stimulus as borrowing money to pay unemployment benefits or to keep state workers from being laid off. Or the Fed printing money for “quantitative easing.” These are all borrowing (or creating) money to increase the money supply. No different, despite semantics about “stealing.”
Where do you get this “stealing” business? We live in a Constitutional democracy. Government spending follows the rule of law. It is not “stealing.” We all earn a living in a society in which government provides the environment which allows us to succeed. Rich people owe more to government than poor people. But, even if we don’t like everything which the government spends money on, the government has a legal right to tax us and we have a legal responsibility to pay. No “theft” involved.
You don’t like welfare. I don’t like war. All of us have things which we don’t like but which we have a legal responsibility to support with our taxes.
I don’t think that Obama’s economic stewardship has been “wonderful.” I do think that the country was in a major crisis. While I didn’t agree with TARP, at the time, in retrospect, I believe that it was the right thing to do and I give Paulson and Bush most of the credit for having the political guts to do what needed to be done. Obama and Geithner continued this policy to its conclusion, which I also now believe was the right thing to do.
With respect to “stimulus,” I still believe as I did at the time that the best policy would have been no “stimulus” at all, beyond, perhaps, a moderate extension of unemployment benefits, along with a more robust infrastructure program. But, as I keep pointing out, we are not talking about $760B vs Zero; we are talking about $760B (Obama, including about 1/3 of this in tax cuts) vs $500B (GOP), where the GOP was mostly tax cuts, which are the least effective form of stimulus. So, yes, Obama increased the debt more than the GOP would have (by $260B). This is not trivial, but it’s not the difference between responsible conservatism, on one hand, and socialism, on the other hand, that has been portrayed so loudly.
I don’t think that you can judge a Presidency until the passage of time. I supported Obama because my two main issues, at the Presidential level, are avoidance of nuclear weapons explosion in my geographic area and health care. I think his policies have met my expectations, in these areas. Beyond that, my third issue is control of our debt load, and the jury is still out. I do think that the number one priority is to get tax policy in line with reality. I was very disappointed when the Bush tax cuts were extended. I’d have allowed all of them to sunset, not simply tax cuts for the upper echelon, but tax cuts for everyone. They were a bad idea when enacted and continuing them is a bad idea now. But neither do I think that the Dems are uniformly wonderful. In this past election, I voted GOP for both House (Rohrabacher) and Senate (Fiorina). So far, I’m pleased with the prospects for improvements over the next couple of years, under our newly revised government. We needed the Dem majorities for health care, but, now that that’s passed, we are far better off having Boehner in charge of setting the House agenda, then we’d have been with Pelosi.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Aye, #150:
I’ll concede the point to you on this one.
I should have studied the chart more carefully before referencing it. It apparently dates from 2009 and is based on a NYT article and CBO estimates that are out of date.
Additionally, the time covered by the chart runs only through 2012. The CBO’s more recent projections of the deficit costs of the ARRA stimulus bill total $787 billion through 2019. The chart leaves out 7 years of projected ARRA-related costs.
@Larry: You said:
So if Granny gets treated for cancer, but dies does Medicare get out of paying for it? Or do they get a bonus if Granny lives?
You also said:
Really? So where in the Constitution is the authorization for any of the Government social programs? And more to the point, I believe what Mata is saying is that the Government is not entitled to all of the private property of the private sector.
To that end, let me ask you this: If you bust your behind in 2011 and for whatever reason (write a best seller, start a business, etc…) you earn $10 million dollars in income. How much of that should the Government get? Give us a number, a percentage and then explain.
For example, should the Government get 65% of your income, just because you are rich and according to your own words, you need to pay more.
Which brings me to the point, when you said:
Do you mean that if a rich person who earns $1 million in income and pays 10% income tax pays more than the poor person who makes $18,000 and pays 10% as well? One pays $100,000 and the other pays $1,800. Or do you mean that the poor person who makes $18,000 should pay 2 or 3% while the rich person should pay 50 or 60%?
You further said:
On this, you and I agree. And as Obama once said, elections have consequences.
@antics: With respect for paying for outcomes, your example was a little simplistic, but that would be the ideal (paying more for good outcomes; not paying as much for poor outcomes). Here’s a more sophisticated discussion of basing medical payments on outcomes, as opposed to paying for services, per se:
http://www.amcp.org/data/jmcp/683-687.pdf
With regard to your hypotheticals:
No, I wouldn’t be in favor of a 65% Federal marginal tax rate. I’d be happy to simply increase the marginal rate from 35% to 39%, because that would increase revenues, decrease debt and decrease borrowing and not reduce incentive of anyone to make money. As I wrote, there’s a “Goldilocks” zone in taxation.
With respect to the general philosophy of progressive taxation, I agree, in general, with the tax philosophies expressed by one of the great GOP Presidents of all time, Theodore Roosevelt. The following is a very nice capsule history of progressive taxation in America:
http://www.tax.org/Museum/1901-1932.htm
I’ve explained previously why rich people are more dependent on the government than not-so-rich people and, therefore, should pay higher taxes not simply because they can afford it, but because they owe more to the government (for their financial success) and therefore should pay more to support the government.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, from the link you provided:
Excuse me, but where in the Constitution does it give the Federal Government the right to say that someone’s private property is “swollen beyond all healthy limits?”
Sounds an awful lot like:
As to your article link about reimbursements in the medical field, what you cited were agreements between private companies. When the Government gets involved with paying higher for better outcomes then you slip into dangerous territory.
Besides, it is ludicrous to pay for outcome based medicine because there are too many variables involved in the human experience to develop any sort of standard rule set.
My example may have been simplistic, but really where do you draw the line?
A doctor might do all the right things, provide exceptional patient care and the patient might just get worse or die anyway – for unrelated reasons.
Is the doctor in this case not entitled to as much pay because, for reasons not in his control, the patient did not do as well as the Government said he should?
The carrot and stick method of paying physicians just won’t work in medicine. It is fine for factory workers who might get a bonus for higher output.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Rather than veer even more severely off topic (like we aren’t already) to yet something as legally in question and philosophical as direct and indirect taxes, the 1909 Corporate Tax Act and the 16th Amendment fraud perpetuated by ensuing Congresses, I’ll just give you a link I’ve kept around for quite a while on the Constitutionality of the 16th Amendment from Original Intent dot org.
The below excerpts may titillate you into reading, where they will go thru the specific definitions of taxes as indirect, direct, and just what constitutes a “16th Amendment income” that may be treated as an indirect, unapportioned tax. And I assure you, most of what of going on, doesn’t fit the legal definitions.
Then, of course, there’s still the sidebar question as to whether the 16th was even lawfully amended via our constitutional criteria.
If …. after reading the 17 page PDF document INRE Constitutional definitions of taxation and the multitude of references to income taxable as indirect under 16th… you disagree, that’s quite fine. But now you will know why I call it *stealing*. Or, as they put it, “governmental theft of property” and fraud”. It has always been about the questionable legitimacy of these taxes via our Constitution, and various SCOTUS decisions that specifically define 16th Amendment ” income”.
I might also reiterate that it is because of these specific definitions of taxes that Congress played their word games for the O’healthcare mandate…. yet another fraud being perpetuated. They did not use their powers of taxation under the General Welfare clause, and for specific reason.
As the rest, glad to hear you aren’t as radical as you allow yourself to be portrayed. I suggest that your penchant for playing devil’s advocate for debate and amusement may be getting a bit out of hand of late. None of that, however, negates that you do feel any and all of a citizen’s earnings is Congressional open season without permits to abscond at will. That, my friend, is a very dangerous perception to have.
BTW, if you’d like to know who are some of the minds behind Original Intent dot org.. they include a Constitutional law and tax advisor to political candidates; a former IRS Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent; a former IRS Revenue Officer, producer of the video, “Theft By Deception – Deciphering the Federal Income Tax”, which has now been endorsed by many tax professionals, including several former IRS and DOJ officials; and a Revenue Agent with the IRS turned Certified Public Accountant and a Certified Fraud Examiner.
MATA , I read your comments answering with facts, and I think you are super, and unbeatable,
these 2 last one are like gold nuggets, you got out of your hat, thank you for that extensive work you are doing. bye