Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So far, nobody has addressed the main question I've posed in this thread which is, "how can republicans fight every government spending initative in the name of reducing the deficit and then fight the expiration of the Bush tax cuts tooth and nail. Letting the tax cuts expire would cut the deficit dramaticly. But I really don't expect a direct and honest answer to the question. The lock step answer is to redirect the focus to spending, effectively sidestepping the issue.
BTW, I'm all for cutting spending also. Cut the military budget dramaticly. Cut the rampant pork barrelling attached to every bill. Cut foreign aid to nations including Pakistan and Israel. Cut the subsidies to large oil cos. and agribusiness. cut the tax breaks for businesses who offshore their workforce. There are other measures we could take.
Edited to add: After reading the responses to my question there are actually a few reasoned responses all against letting the Bush tax cuts expire. I guess anytime you talk about raising taxes you're about as popular as a f*rt in a crowded elevator. But those who are against letting the Bush tax cuts expire should not fight tooth and nail using the deficit as an excuse. You are major contributors to the deficit.
Your are looking at the issue with a very myopic view. Our deficit is out of control, on that we agree. There are more solutions to attacking the deficit other than the two you proposed. A deficit results when you spend more than you take in in revenues and you only want to focus on the revenue aspect without addressing the spending aspect. Republicans and conservatives want to address the spending aspect before we visit a need to raise taxes during one of the greatest recessions our nation has ever witnessed. IF, after massive cuts to government spending there is a documented need to raise taxes to cover the budget shortfalls, then we can address the issue of raising taxes. But to do so now, during a recession, is idiotic and extremely shortsighted. When the government proves that it can spend within its means responsibly and eliminates pork and waste and duplicity in their programs, then I'll be the first to get onboard with a tax increase. Until then, they should stop looking to the American taxpayer to continue funding their pet projects and BS.
Edited to add: After reading the responses to my question there are actually a few reasoned responses all against letting the Bush tax cuts expire. I guess anytime you talk about raising taxes you're about as popular as a f*rt in a crowded elevator. But those who are against letting the Bush tax cuts expire should not fight tooth and nail using the deficit as an excuse. You are major contributors to the deficit.
I don't think that's fair. With Fed, state, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc many of us are paying more than 50% of our income to taxes. What more do you want?
It's hard to respond how you might like because you only give two possible answers that can be used to respond to the question, when there can be other solutions. That doesn't make much sense to me.
I pretty much completely agree with you here. Most of those suggestions are reasonable imo. So, take your suggestions, raises a tax on a few items for the wealthy (the Kerry scandle and his property taxes for that boat of his comes to mind), have anybody that isn't paying federal income taxes pay a flat tax (say 7-10% of their income), and look into other programs to cut. The elderly on fixed incomes should be left out of it, imo. Perhaps put an end to all the UE extensions or at least have anyone that is on UE for too long do part time work for their local cities.
Speaking to the bolded portion of your post. I'm trying to point out the obvious hypocracy of politicians fighting every financial bill tooth and nail using the logic that it increases the deficit while simultaneously fighting the expiration of the Bush tax cuts that would automaticly reduce the deficit. Sure, higher taxes are unpopular and should be acompanied with a reduction in spending but everyone needs to bite the bullet if we are to get the country back on it's feet. I feel the increased taxes should be across the board and not just to the richest. Everyone should feel the pain of paying our national debt down.
Respectfully speaking, I thought that's what governemnt is supposed to do. Collect taxes and spend the revenue as it sees fit, for the betterment of the nation. Some for defense, some for infrastructure and some for the health and well being of it's citizens. There appears to be a certain segment of society that wants the infrastructure to be dammed and eliminate all funding pertaining to the health and welfare of the citizens to be eliminated. This I can't abide.
I agree with you to a point. But the US has already spent so much that it has surpassed the national GDP. The problem is that there are a lot of Americans in the private sector who are unemployed. Still, the government sector continues growing and increasing its budget. The private sector is the only portion of the economy that can get it going, not the government, and there is only so much money the government can take from the people. Right now workers are paying around $42.00 or more in taxes. Unless the Federal and local governments cut spending, the whole nation will go broke.
the answer to the OP is that the deficit does not matter where tax cuts are concerned. No one believes they should be paid for be cause they believe, erroneously that revenues go up due to tax cuts. The truth is that revenue almost always goes up because our economy expands. The growth slows immediately after tax cuts.
For example, federal revenue grew under Reagan during his eight year term that included cuts. Clinton raised taxes and revenue grew faster. When Reagan was President the national debt as a percentage of GDP skyrocketed to over 60% after mostly declining under all administrations post WWII. Not surprisingly that percentage decreased under Clinton with his tax increases and balanced budget attempts. Lo, after Bush Jr. the debt as a percentage of GDP steadily climbed again reaching a maximum of 67%.
Now, we are spending massive amounts of money to stimulate the economy, save big banks, rescue the automakers, extend unemployment benefits, get health care to more people and attempt to revive our economy. The percentage is now at 87% due to the many initiatives and tax cuts. If the argument is that we need to control the deficit, then allowing the Bush cuts to expire for the top 2 brackets and restoring those to Clinton levels as well as increasing taxes on dividends and capital gains will make the largest immediate impact.
Obviously, the tax cuts for all brackets except the top two would keep the Bush AND Obama tax cuts.
Of course, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not on the books during the Bush era, so the debt was actually higher and is now included.
By far the largest amount of discretionary spending goes to defense. So, to those that say cut spending to manage the debt, I ask what you want to cut. Medicare for seniors? Social Security for seniors and the disabled? Unemployment? Infrastructure?
So far, nobody has addressed the main question I've posed in this thread which is, "how can republicans fight every government spending initative in the name of reducing the deficit and then fight the expiration of the Bush tax cuts tooth and nail. Letting the tax cuts expire would cut the deficit dramaticly.
So far, everyone has given you a solution to how to extend current tax rates and reduce the deficit at the same time. Just because you don't like their answer you say they are sidestepping the question? Boring and immature.
And this guy at CNN is wrong, wrong, wrong....The 3 biggest years in U.S. history for collection of personal and business taxes were 2006, 2007 and 2008. After the tax cuts for the "rich"......That pretty much proves reducing taxes does not add to the deficit. Electing people to office that are irresponsible with the money contributes to the deficit. If you vote for those people it's just as much your fault as anyone else.
It's sort of like my own income. If I make $35,000 a year and spend $25,000 then I have saved $10,000 for later use.
If I make 5 million and spend 8 million then I'm 3 million in the hole for the year. Even though I made a lot more in example B I am ****ed.
Deficit spending has nothing to do how much money the government collects in taxes. It is only because of overspending. ONLY OVERSPENDING.
That's like saying the reason the Colts lost the Super Bowl was that they didn't score enough and had absolutely nothing to do with giving up too many points. Taxation is certainly part of the equation, but it's not the entire story. Placing the blame squarely on one component simply reflects your opinions on the appropriate levels of expenditure and taxation.
Perhaps a more direct analogy is appropriate. Would you say the reason someone has $20k in credit card debt is that their company fails to adequately compensate them? In some cases that would be true, but more usually the blame is placed on either irresponsible spending and emergencies. Some would even go so far as to say inadequately saving for eventual emergencies is itself a form of irresponsible spending. For the government I'm inclined to agree. Recessions are cyclical and like earthquakes are not so much a question of if but a question of when. During boom times we should run a surplus knowing that there will be an eventual bust.
For irresponsible spenders, the level of debt isn't necessarily related to their total income--if they earned more they'd simply spend more in proportion. I think it's a genuine concern of conservatives that no matter how much the government takes in it will always find ways to spend more. I think the mindset of blaming insufficient tax revenue will help reinforce this attitude. Effective government has to be mindful that any new program or service must be sufficiently necessary that it's worth forcibly taking money from taxpayers. What exactly constitutes appropriate and necessary are open to debate, but it's wrong to treat all money as rightly belonging to the government and only begrudgingly returned to those who earned it.
It's my attitude that both spending decreases and tax increases are going to be necessary in the medium term to adequately balance the budget. Shared sacrifice from both sides of the debate is politically necessary to ensure that debt doesn't overwhelm us and force even more draconian measures.
I agree with the bolded part of your post 100%. You also have some pretty good logic with the rest of your post.
Speaking to the bolded portion of your post. I'm trying to point out the obvious hypocracy of politicians fighting every financial bill tooth and nail using the logic that it increases the deficit while simultaneously fighting the expiration of the Bush tax cuts that would automaticly reduce the deficit. Sure, higher taxes are unpopular and should be acompanied with a reduction in spending but everyone needs to bite the bullet if we are to get the country back on it's feet. I feel the increased taxes should be across the board and not just to the richest. Everyone should feel the pain of paying our national debt down.
Is the government feeling any pain? Are they slashing their budgets and making broad cuts? Or are they expanding at an astronomical pace and then looking to the taxpayer to foot the bill. The same taxpayer who has seen their 401K balances drop, their home values decrease, their pay/hours and sometimes their jobs decrease.
The taxpayer is already sharing the the pain. Hell, we're the only ones that are! The problem is, our government is not. They continue to spend at record pace, even increasing in size and scope every step of the way.
Why do you continually give the government a pass but want the taxpaying public to take on further burdens that many of us don't even support?
Speaking to the bolded portion of your post. I'm trying to point out the obvious hypocracy of politicians fighting every financial bill tooth and nail using the logic that it increases the deficit while simultaneously fighting the expiration of the Bush tax cuts that would automaticly reduce the deficit. Sure, higher taxes are unpopular and should be acompanied with a reduction in spending but everyone needs to bite the bullet if we are to get the country back on it's feet. I feel the increased taxes should be across the board and not just to the richest. Everyone should feel the pain of paying our national debt down.
So, you're saying that I should give more than 50% of my income. I should give what? 60-70%? Is that reasonable? Many of us are already biting the bullet and have been for years. And there is no reason to assume that it would reduce the deficit. Those hanging on by shoe strings living month-to-month that would have to pay more in taxes and then not be able to make ends meet, would end up costing us more.
I don't know what you pay in taxes, but I'm curious as to how much more you can shell out. It's great you're doing well, tho.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
