Paul Ryan

[Len44]

Exactly! We have to raise our taxes to a reasonable level AND cut our spending to reasonable levels, while at the same time maintaining economic growth. Unfortunately, for the last twelve years we have been doing just the opposite. We have drastically lowered taxes, drastically increased spending, and had not one but two recessions, the second of which was almost another great depression. So the answer is yes, we have to do all of those things, and yes, it will take a very long time to get back in the black. It took twelve years to go from a balanced annual budget with too much long term debt to where we are now, a large annual budget deficit with astronomical long term debt. And it will take probably double that amount of time to get back to where we were. Now you can begin to understand just how disastrous the Bush years were for this country, and why we are still blaming him for where we are today.

Bush was a total disaster for the Country. He and Cheney, Rove, McConnell, Tom Delay, Jack Abramhoff, and the bunch of criminals and perverts that republicans had in Congress and K Street lobbyists were just a terrible time for the United States. Damn straight I blame Bush -- easily the worst President ever!

No wonder the republicans didn't want him anywhere near their political efforts since he left office. I understand the republicans have changed his name from George Bush to "George Who?"

 

[Len44]

Regarding health care, it seems to me that the massive amount of $$$$$$$$ that the health care insurance industry sucks out of the system could be better spent on, um, actual health care.

Wonder if the nation's overall health would improve we simply eliminated the health care insurance industry (since they contribute nothing to actual health care), and provided universal health care services to everyone.

I know this goes against the republican "every man for himself" mantra, but, just a thought...

 

[jmschnur]

Taking all burdens from business in terms of health care and putting it on the federal government might be good for Papa Johns. I wonder if they support single payer health care?


J

 

[Len44]

Taking all burdens from business in terms of health care and putting it on the federal government might be good for Papa Johns. I wonder if they support single payer health care?J

Good point. Helping Papa Johns would certainly give me pause...

 

[Rich]

Regarding health care, it seems to me that the massive amount of $$$$$$$$ that the health care insurance industry sucks out of the system could be better spent on, um, actual health care.

Wonder if the nation's overall health would improve we simply eliminated the health care insurance industry (since they contribute nothing to actual health care), and provided universal health care services to everyone.

I know this goes against the republican "every man for himself" mantra, but, just a thought...

Oh no, can't do that Len. That would be socialism. No, we must have a market-based plan that keeps insurance companies in business and profitable, you know, like the one we have. Oh no, wait. That one was put in place by a democrat. That one must be socialism too. Never mind that it is based on Romney's own plan and on ideas from the Heritage Foundation. Any government health plan would be socialism. Even the one Nixon tried to pass. /sarcasm

 

[Kevin]

Some reading for you, Kevin: Do Tax Cuts Lead to Economic Growth?



Over the past 65 years, changes in the top tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. I'll bet on that.

In 2009, Obama didn't support raising taxes as it would, in his own words, "take more demand out of the economy and put businesses further in a hole ". Bill Clinton said as much as well at the time. So, is our economy doing so well at the current time, that we can now afford to take that demand away? Also, you made a statement in an earlier post that, "personal income taxes are not passed on to the customer in a business. Business just doesn't work that way." However, 80% of small businesses file their taxes as individuals, and yes, most will pass that added expense along. There are plenty of articles showing that increasing taxes will boost economic growth. I'm not positive it hurts during certain times, but in our current situation, I bet it might. But like I said, I would allow the increase, and let's see what happens. Why stop at 39%? Lets do a really large increase and really light a fire under this economy. Some reading for you- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443684104578066611560765402.html

 

[Rich]

Some reading for you- http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443684104578066611560765402.html

This article is just full of inaccuracies and misleading statements. For example:

It is also true that when Bill Clinton raised tax rates in the 1990s, the economy boomed and the share of taxes paid by the rich increased. But the otherwise depressive effect of higher tax rates was counteracted by the lighter burden of government on the private sector—federal spending declined to 18% of GDP in 2000 from 22% in 1993.

"Lighter burden of government on the private sector" due to "federal spending declined"? That is a bunch of horse manure! When has federal spending declined in our lifetime? He phrases it as "federal spending declined as a percentage of GDP" because he wants to pretend it reflects his thesis of smaller government having less burden on the private sector. That is BS. What really happened is federal spending continued to rise, but the GDP rose a lot faster. So it wasn't smaller government / less regulation of the private sector that "masked the negative effect of higher taxes." It was the fact that we had a red-hot economy, which drastically boosted GDP in relation to government spending, in SPITE OF THE FACT that we had raised taxes.

 

[Kevin]

"Lighter burden of government on the private sector" due to "federal spending declined"? That is a bunch of horse manure! When has federal spending declined in our lifetime? He phrases it as "federal spending declined as a percentage of GDP" because he wants to pretend it reflects his thesis of smaller government having less burden on the private sector. That is BS. What really happened is federal spending continued to rise, but the GDP rose a lot faster. So it wasn't smaller government / less regulation of the private sector that "masked the negative effect of higher taxes." It was the fact that we had a red-hot economy, which drastically boosted GDP in relation to government spending, in SPITE OF THE FACT that we had raised taxes.

I took it to mean that federal spending declined as a percentage of GDP, not that spending actually dropped. But what also contributed towards that decline, in relationship to the GDP, was the fact that, working with the republicans, he did make broad cuts to the budget, keeping the spending level fairly flat. It was during that time that he gave the speech with the words, "the era of big government is over". I don't think we'll be hearing those words anytime soon.

But again, I say raise the taxes. Having a science background, I don't believe that correlation necessarily implies causation, with so many other variables at play in the economy. But I'm open to seeing what happens if we raise taxes on the rich. But that is pretty easy for me to say, because I don't fit in that category. I would also, however, like to see some of the loopholes closed at the same time. I really believe that people like Warren Buffett might not pay a dime more. His army of lawyers and accountants will take advantage of any means possible to shelter his money. Instead, it will be the guy in New York city, raising a family of four on $250,000, that will end up with the increased bill.

 

[Rich]

But what also contributed towards that decline, in relationship to the GDP, was the fact that, working with the republicans, he did make broad cuts to the budget, keeping the spending level fairly flat.

This is simply not true. Annual spending was 1.41 trillion when he came into office, and it was 1.79 trillion when he left. It rose every single year he was in office. That is not "flat" and it is not "smaller government." Total revenues, however, jumped a significant amount -- almost doubling, from 1.15 trillion to 2.03 trillion during his two terms. GDP rose by a third. None of this data backs up Stephen Moore's erroneous thesis.

 

[Kevin]

This is simply not true. Annual spending was 1.41 trillion when he came into office, and it was 1.79 trillion when he left. It rose every single year he was in office. That is not "flat" and it is not "smaller government." Total revenues, however, jumped a significant amount -- almost doubling, from 1.15 trillion to 2.03 trillion during his two terms. GDP rose by a third. None of this data backs up Stephen Moore's erroneous thesis.

Clintons budget in 1993 included a tax increase of $241 billion and $255 billion in spending cuts. When you look at his first term, the increase in spending was just .31% adjusted for inflation. I would say that is fairly flat. His two terms also saw the reduction in the number of federal employees. Both of his terms, when compared to presidents before and after, saw reduced levels of spending. So is it wrong to suggest that spending decreases might have sparked things just as likely, or perhaps in combination with, the tax increases? Here is a chart I found showing spending increases by presidents, I'm in a hurry to get out of the office so couldn't check it, but I'm guessing it has correct data.

http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/06/21/us-government-spending-increases-by-president-1961-2012/

 

[Rich]

Clintons budget in 1993 included a tax increase of $241 billion and $255 billion in spending cuts. When you look at his first term, the increase in spending was just .31% adjusted for inflation. I would say that is fairly flat.

Semantics. He still grew spending every year he was in office. So you can't really say, as Moore does, that the revved up economy was due to "smaller government" or "less government spending" during the Clinton years. It simply isn't true that the government spending shrank during that time.

His two terms also saw the reduction in the number of federal employees.

And we have less federal employees today than we had at the beginning of Clinton's first term. So again, the thesis Moore presents is patently false. If smaller government were going to rev the economy, we should have had a screaming economy for the last twelve years.

So is it wrong to suggest that spending decreases might have sparked things just as likely, or perhaps in combination with, the tax increases?

Yes, it is wrong. There is simply no correlation between less government spending and greater economic growth. Just as there is no correlation between lower taxes and greater economic growth.

 

[Rich]

David Frum is a highly ethical and rational conservative. This article by him should be required reading for all conservatives: Conservatives, don't despair

 

[GaryG]

Exactly! We have to raise our taxes to a reasonable level

By "We" and "our" most people think the government should raise taxes on "Me".

I'll cut Rich some slack on this as he has indicated favorability to letting the Bush tax cuts expire so we all carry the burden. Let me quote long time former Democrat senator from LA on this one: "Don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax the fella behind the tree."

Regards,
Gary

 

[jmschnur]

Revert back to pre bush tax rates, keep pay roll tax break, cut sequester in half.

Have the road to pre bush tax rates be long term, raise the rates over a three year period


Do this in January so republicans can get credit for decreasing tax rate.


J

 

[asindc]

By "We" and "our" most people think the government should raise taxes on "Me".

I'll cut Rich some slack on this as he has indicated favorability to letting the Bush tax cuts expire so we all carry the burden. Let me quote long time former Democrat senator from LA on this one: "Don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax the fella behind the tree."

Regards,
Gary

Meanwhile, rich people are saying "tax us already!":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/top-two-percent-tax_n_2245596.html

 

[Kevin]

Meanwhile, rich people are saying "tax us already!":

Based upon a 'hunch', I quickly tried to see how much a couple of those CEO's in the article make a year. Fred Smith has a net worth of $2 billion. David Hess seems to make about $6 million a year, Dawne Hickton about $3 million a year, and Randall Stephenson about $20 million a year. These are people who can afford the lawyers and accountants to take advantage of every gimmick available to avoid paying most of any increase. However, the guy making $260,000 a year in New York City, raising a family of four and trying to send his kids to a private school (just like Obama did), will be the poor sap that actually gets hit with the full increase. I didn't see anyone like that in the article saying yes, please raise it on me.

It's sort of like Costco founder, Jim Sinegal, saying at the democratic convention, that we all need to contribute our share. But then uses a gimmick himself recently to avoid the higher taxes coming up in January. Apparently he did all he could to contribute as little of his share as possible.

 

[twich54]

However, the guy making $260,000 a year in New York City, raising a family of four and trying to send his kids to a private school (just like Obama did), will be the poor sap that actually gets hit with the full increase.

hey Kev, remember this, anybody that can send their kids to a private school is not a 'poor sap', rather one with enough income to make that choice over public education !

Myself, I'm somewhat bewildered as to why we are wasting so much time / effort in worrying about the 'taxing the rich BS' , which won't do jack 'chit' to reverse this Nations debt crisis. Instead lets see concentration on a return to a viable American economy that through payroll and industrial taxation will, with respect to this growth, get this Country headed in the right direction.

 

[Kevin]

hey Kev, remember this, anybody that can send their kids to a private school is not a 'poor sap', rather one with enough income to make that choice over public education !

Myself, I'm somewhat bewildered as to why we are wasting so much time / effort in worrying about the 'taxing the rich BS' , which won't do jack 'chit' to reverse this Nations debt crisis. Instead lets see concentration on a return to a viable American economy that through payroll and industrial taxation will, with respect to this growth, get this Country headed in the right direction.

What his proposed 'tax on the rich', does exactly, is reduces this past years deficit from $1.1 trillion to $1.02 trillion. Which is why, were I in the republicans position, would be tempted to offer it to him. There is a good portion of society who feels that their current predicament is because the 'rich don't pay their fair share', after all, they have heard it over and over again. The president to this day is still out 'campaigning' using this issue. Take it away from him, and let the public see for themselves just what a hollow line it is.

 

[timm]

What his proposed 'tax on the rich', does exactly, is reduces this past years deficit from $1.1 trillion to $1.02 trillion. Which is why, were I in the republicans position, would be tempted to offer it to him. There is a good portion of society who feels that their current predicament is because the 'rich don't pay their fair share', after all, they have heard it over and over again. The president to this day is still out 'campaigning' using this issue. Take it away from him, and let the public see for themselves just what a hollow line it is.

ah yes... good ol' class warfare... Was it Marx that said that it would be the end of capitalism?

 

[Kevin]

ah yes... good ol' class warfare... Was it Marx that said that it would be the end of capitalism?

There might be a legitimate argument to be made that the very richest among should be paying more in taxes. But it is a political argument much more so than an economic solution to our current affairs. There are no easy answers, but I think any solution will have to involve both sides being willing to suck a very tart lemon. The $16 trillion in current debt is only the tip of the iceberg when compared to our unfunded liabilities. Sure is interesting times we live in.