Really ever article I ever read about the 90's swore that the rich were still getting rich must faster than the poor. That the income gap was growing at a record rate, especially with regard to CEO pay.
Thats true. Normally you say that when the economy is growing the gini coefficient is growing too and the other way round. But what you have experienced since 1968 is that it has grown all the time, even when the economy wasn´t.
Thats true. Normally you say that when the economy is growing the gini coefficient is growing too and the other way round. But what you have experienced since 1968 is that it has grown all the time, even when the economy wasn´t.
Anders, could you label our graph? Is it showing economic growth or the growth of the gini coeffiecient?
I'm going to assume it is just the gini coeffecient by itself. Do you have one that shows economic growth relative to the gini coeffecient? I would be very interested in seeing that one.
Bush is for giving the tax credit to poor working folks who were excluded this last time. Even though they pay no taxes they get the credit back. (Means they get $1000 for paying nothing) That is not conservative.
1. Of course they pay taxes. Many (though not all) pay no federal income tax, but they all pay taxes.
2. They won't get the full $1000 because of the way it's phased in at different income levels.
3. These types of credits - like the earned income tax credit - were conservative ideas because they were seen as better than welfare.
shetline - I like it. Democrats and Republicans spend equally. The only difference is that Democrats believe in paying for it.
When Clinton beat Bush in 1992, it wasn't as much on the sour economy as people remember. It was largely on the deficit (Perot got in and made that a big issue). Something similar could happen now. Even if the economy does better, if people link "economy" (in general terms) with "deficit and debt," Bush will be seen as bad for the economy. But it has to become something that people care about. Right now it doesn't seem to be on the radar, and of course the media won't say anything that could be interpreted as critical of Bush, so my hopes aren't high.
1. Of course they pay taxes. Many (though not all) pay no federal income tax, but they all pay taxes.
2. They won't get the full $1000 because of the way it's phased in at different income levels.
3. These types of credits - like the earned income tax credit - were conservative ideas because they were seen as better than welfare.
When Clinton beat Bush in 1992, it wasn't as much on the sour economy as people remember. It was largely on the deficit (Perot got in and made that a big issue). Something similar could happen now. Even if the economy does better, if people link "economy" (in general terms) with "deficit and debt," Bush will be seen as bad for the economy. But it has to become something that people care about. Right now it doesn't seem to be on the radar, and of course the media won't say anything that could be interpreted as critical of Bush, so my hopes aren't high.
I know it is a conservative idea. Just goes to show you that I don't agree with all things "conservative."
In case you hadn't gotten the jist, the only think I like less than a Democrat acting like a Democrat is a Republican acting like a Democrat.
I think your insight into the 1992 election is pretty dead on. I have contended that the Republican party has two parts, fiscally conservative and the borrow and spend part. (If someone wants to search I claimed this several months ago too. ) I was begging for John Kasich to come back.
Let's say that again... "borrow-and-spend Republicans".
Just keep repeating the phrase, until it sinks into the national consciousness as an intrisically joined, organically linked, inseparable set of words. May the word "Republican" forever stick in your mouth until it is eased out by the necessary prelude "borrow-and-spend".
Borrow-and-spend Republicans.
Is this fair? At least as fair as "tax-and-spend Democrats." I'll admit that Democrats have indeed favored one or another type or increase in tax. I'll admit that Democrats have indeed favored spending money on one thing or another.
So, have Republicans ever supported increasing the national debt? Yes. Have they ever wanted to spend any of this borrowed money on anything? Most certainly. So, there you go...
Borrow-and-spend Republicans.
Now, I could try to explore details of predilictions or degrees of spending, taxing, and borrowing. Why sometimes it might be good to cut taxes, good to raise taxes, good to borrow or not borrow. But that really is all besides the point, isn't it?
Borrow-and-spend Republicans.
It's about emotions. It's about rallying the troops. It's about simplifying issues to the point of mind-numbing stupidity... sadly, it would seem, the most effective way to appeal to (or is that manipulate?) the electorate.
Borrow-and-spend Republicans.
Yes, indeedy. I like the sound of that. And it is rather fitting for the current Republican administration and Congress, since with essentially complete control of the national agenda they're borrowing and spending at record-setting levels.
Borrow-and-spend Republicans.
Don't bother us with reasons or excuses for all this borrowing and spending -- war, recession, very questionable claims of stimulating the economy -- this is all about rhetoric here, and any counter-argument only shows you're on the defensive, on the run.
Would I prefer that the political debate took place at a higher level than this? Of course. I'd also prefer it if documentaries on the history of modern medicine or pictures from Mars probes got higher ratings on TV than Survivor. I'm not holding my breath.
Borrow-and-spend Republicans.
Now, admittedly, "tax-and-spend Democrats" has a little more bite to it. Why? I'd hazard a guess that it's because when you're appealing to simple minds, taxing sounds worse than borrowing, because borrowing means you're going to get what you want now without having to pay for it now -- and to the simple mind, later is... well, later.
Borrow-and-spend Republicans.
Still, I like it. It should work with voters who have at least three neurons, rather than just two, to devote to political issues, and that could be enough to swing a few elections here and there.
Borrow-and-spend Republicans.
No, this isn't an original phrase of mine. I've heard a Democrat or two use the phrase from time to time. But they're missing the point of a phrase like this -- it's not very useful when used only as an occasional quip. It needs to be a mantra. De rigeur when mentioning their opponents. Hypnotically repeated until it buries itself into the public mind.
I have to confess...I didn't read the whole thread. Here is what will absolutely blow everyone's mind though:
I mostly agree with you.
Republicans are supporting things they shouldn't be. Particularly, social spending and entitlements that our government was never intended to be involved in (beyond taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves).
But that's where I think we disagree. I think the problem is not tax cuts, but SPENDING. Politically, some politicians argue "we can't afford a tax cut" or "we can't spend money on a tax cut". Tax cuts aren't spending. Hopefully we can all agree on that.
Quote:
Don't bother us with reasons or excuses for all this borrowing and spending -- war, recession, very questionable claims of stimulating the economy -- this is all about rhetoric here, and any counter-argument only shows you're on the defensive, on the run.
We'll have to disagree there, too. War, recession and stimulating the economy are all good reasons to spend and/or cut taxes.
Overall, though I can't disagree completely. The difference is that I really do think Republicans stand for "a bit" less spending than do Democrats, and often have a more "private enterprise will fix it and government will screw it up" phisophy. In other words, Laissez-faire. i also support reduced taxation, because out current levels are literally obscene. Republicans are the choice for me, though I'm not happy about all they do today.
We'll have to disagree there, too. War, recession and stimulating the economy are all good reasons to spend and/or cut taxes.
Please don't misunderstand my point... I too believe that these things can be good reasons. My "Don't bother us with reasons or excuses" was in the satirical sense of saying "Don't try to squirm out of the label I'm sticking you with".
Overall, though I can't disagree completely. The difference is that I really do think Republicans stand for "a bit" less spending than do Democrats, and often have a more "private enterprise will fix it and government will screw it up" phisophy.
Here's are my biggest beefs with the general Republican approach to tax cuts:
(1) They aren't cutting spending first, then making cuts later. They're cutting first, running up bigger deficits in the present, and merely hoping that they can either (A) cut spending later, or (B) blame all over-budget spending on the Democrats.
A few Republicans may actually think that if they cut taxes enough the pain of restricted budgets will eventually put spending in order. In other words, use tax cuts as a tool to produce the leaner government they aspire to somewhere down the road.
I don't think that approach will ever work. Why? Because the approach proceeds from a complete misunderstanding of the composition of a budget in a democracy. The people in this country (or any other country for that matter) are always going to be driven by two inconsistent desires: to have lower taxes, and to expect that the government "does something about 'that'".
It's a ridiculous pipe dream to imagine that anything close to a majority of voters will ever be happy with the level of government services that they can get from the level of taxation the wish they had. If the unimaginable ever became true, and a majority of the public clearly and consistently supported both low taxes and the correspondingly low level of services those taxes would pay for, politician's would have a clear mandate to cut both the taxes and the spending at the same time -- no games of cutting now and hoping for the pain to produce the right spending reductions later would be necessary.
The day you see a budget you can approve of top to bottom will be sometime after the day you're declared King. Otherwise, the compromise nature of a democratically produced budget will always be a budget where anyone who looks will see some spending that, in his or her opinion, is wasteful or unnecessary.
(2) Capitalism is the best economic system we've ever had, but in its purest form capitalism has some major flaws (such as Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons) and can produce bizarre distortions in the distribution of wealth.
I have no problem with some people getting rich, even really amazing rich. I think that the dream of being able to strike it rich is an important element of incentive in the economy. On the other hand, however, I don't treat it as a sacred religious precept that any distribution of wealth resulting from capitalism in action is so inherently fair and just that it's somehow wrong to tax the rich more heavily than the middle class and the poor.
Bill Gates is smart, shrewd (maybe too shrewd -- but that's another manner) and hard-working. But he's not 100,000 times smarter, shrewder, or harder working than the average tax payer even though his personal wealth is on the order 100,000 greater. Does Bill Gates do so much wonderful stuff every day that it's worth 400 years of an average person's labor? Not in my book.
Now, I'm not expecting the tax system to be used to try to level out these extremes in any major way. I don't, however, have any problem with a progressive tax system performing a small redistribution of wealth by making the rich pay a moderatly higher percentage of their incomes in taxes, in taxes that can't be easily avoided.
Republican policy of late, however, seems so enamored with wealth and the wealthy that Republicans act like it's almost a crime to suggest that the wealthy aren't entitled to every single penny they've "earned" in as close to a tax-free way as possible.
I don't buy that. I think there are very good reasons to complain about Bush's tax cuts being aimed so much at the wealthy, no matter how many times besides-the-point comments like "Of course the rich get bigger cuts, because they already pay more in taxes" are made. It's not "class warfare" to decry the elimination, and especially the reversal, of progressivism in the tax system.
Unfortunately, this online version is subscription-only -- so I don't imagine many of you will get to read it.
A great quote from this article, that relates well to what I'd been saying before about cutting taxes in the hopes that that will lead to reduced spending:
Quote:
This development also illustrates the essential logical flaw in the starve-the-beast argument. It assumes that, as Republicans intentionally sink the country deeper and deeper into debt in order to shrink the government to the size they prefer, Democrats will respond by acting responsibly. But what if Democrates decide that fiscal responsibility is a loser's game? They might instead adopt the mirror image of the GOP strategy: Spends gobs and gobs of money, and hope deficits will grow so high that Republicans will have to stop cutting taxes. To expect the Democrats to continuously put their sense of responsibility ahead of their ideological interests, while Republicans continously do the opposite, is to expect a level of self-abnegation bordering on political suicide.
What this quote leaves out, which I also think is important, is that even in a totally Republican controlled government, I doubt that a majority of Republican really, truly want to cut spending as much as the tax cuts they're making would require, and very few Republicans (or at least their financial analysts who aren't making stump speeches) actually believe the current rhetoric that the economy will be so wonderfully stimulated as to offset the cuts and bring even a severly reduced budget back into balance.
Does it make sense to stomp your feet demanding tax cuts, on some ideological stand over the "rightness" of those cuts, even when you know that in reality the needed matching spending cuts simply will not happen?
On taxes: I have to disagree with you. You assume that much lower levels of taxation will result in "fewer services". What services?
Shetline, our government does too much and spends too much. It is involved in too much. It takes too much. Taxation is not a zero sum game. That is, when the economy improves, revenue goes up. To get the economy to improve, large and sweeping tax reform is needed.
I also think you comments about capitalism are telling. Government has NO BUSINESS resdestributing ANY wealth. None. Zero. The problem is our social assistance programs are based on "need". Financial need. Though it may sound good to give some people assistance because they are poor, in reality it hasn't helped the poor that much. The government spends hundreds of billions of dollars over the years...and the problem doesn't get better. Awhile ago I posted links on the poverty percentages compared to government spending. What one sees is that the poverty rate decreased faster when we were spending LESS on poverty programs. Over the past twenty years, the rate is virtually unchanged. Why? Because we have been giving money to the poor, or people "in need". But this, contrary to popular opinion, doesn't work. What we need to do is give social assistance to those who
cannot provide for themselves for a mental or physical reason. In other words, we should take care of those who cannot take care of themselves (as I posted earlier). We should not give people aid simply because they are poor. To do so removes the incentive to become "not poor".
Today's Republican party does spend too much. Politically, this is fairly popular. As I said, I can't disagree with the term "borrow and spend" Republicans. Though, I'd choose that any day over "tax and spend" Democrats. The reason is as I've said, taxation is not zero-sum. I do believe that tax cuts will improve the economy and thereby increase revenue.
As far as cutting taxes: The argument about the rich paying the taxes is valid. They shouldn't be penalized just because they make more...as if the government has more moral authority to take their money for that reason. That's the important concept. It really IS OUR MONEY...not the government's. The government is involved in resdistribution, as this country is well on its way to Democratic Socialism.
Finally, make no mistake. The middle class HAS benefited from the President's tax plans. I saw $50 per check more with the last one. I'll see the same from this one. My taxes this year wil descrease by about 10%. That's quite significant. Actually, lower-middle income families will do even better with this latest one.
I could go on but won't. Though not perfect, there is no question that the Republican party generally stands for the things I do. Now, if they'd just cut spending....
On taxes: I have to disagree with you. You assume that much lower levels of taxation will result in "fewer services". What services?
The phrase I used was "level of services", so it's not so much a matter of number, but how well services like defense, transportation, research, federal law enforcement, intelligence -- and yes, some social services -- are funded.
Shetline, our government does too much and spends too much. It is involved in too much. It takes too much. Taxation is not a zero sum game.
You can believe that as fervently as you like, you still have to budget for political reality. Until a clear political will exists to cut government spending, "starve the beast" tax cuts are only going to give you deficits, not magically produce "correct" spending priorities.
That is, when the economy improves, revenue goes up. To get the economy to improve, large and sweeping tax reform is needed.
But you're missing the tenuous nature of the causality here, and any analysis of magnitude of effect. Boiling it all down to "Taxes go down. Economy picks up. Revenue goes up." may work for stump speech rhetoric, but it's not sound economics.
The historical record for "Taxes go down. Revenue goes up." is far from clear. It's mostly an unproven matter of supply-sider faith. Supposing that the economy does improve, even most conservative economists don't expect the improved economy to completely offset the tax cuts. Revenue will still be down, meaning that the tax cuts will produce long-term structural deficits. Those deficits will likely constrain availability of capital for investments in the future, meaning that Bush may be tying a boat anchor to the economy that's only going to start dragging on the economy sometime after he's out of office. Irresponsibly short-term thinking.
I also think you comments about capitalism are telling.
Telling how? That I don't think like an unreformed 19th-century robber baron?
Government has NO BUSINESS resdestributing ANY wealth. None. Zero. The problem is our social assistance programs are based on "need"... We should not give people aid simply because they are poor. To do so removes the incentive to become "not poor".
You're attacking your own favorite boogey men, not what I actually said.
First of all, if you do indeed support needs-based assistance, that is a redistribution of wealth somewhere above "None. Zero." So your own stand is a matter of degree of redistribution, not absolute insistence against redistribution.
Secondly, you're assuming that redistribution of wealth only means government hand-outs. But simply having a progressive tax system where the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their incomes to support defense, road building, education, science, etc. is a form of redistribution.
Today's Republican party does spend too much. Politically, this is fairly popular. As I said, I can't disagree with the term "borrow and spend" Republicans.
Stuff that is politically popular often becomes law. That's why we call this a democracy. That's why it's still a pipe dream to imagine that cutting taxes is going to lead to proper corresponding cuts in spending, rather than producing deficits.
Though, I'd choose that any day over "tax and spend" Democrats. The reason is as I've said, taxation is not zero-sum. I do believe that tax cuts will improve the economy and thereby increase revenue.
You'll have a hard time finding even conservative economists who think Bush's tax cuts will actually stimulate the economy to such an effective degree that revenue shortfalls will be covered by increased revenue. What historical data does exist for economic stimulation via tax cuts better supports cuts targeted more towards lower- and middle-income families, not the wealthy.
As far as cutting taxes: The argument about the rich paying the taxes is valid. They shouldn't be penalized just because they make more...as if the government has more moral authority to take their money for that reason. That's the important concept. It really IS OUR MONEY...not the government's. The government is involved in resdistribution, as this country is well on its way to Democratic Socialism.
Again, this is a matter of degrees, not absolute right and wrong. If it "really IS OUR MONEY" applies, then all taxation of any degree is wrong. If, however, you accept that some kind and level of taxation is a necessity, it's not like you can drop in your favorite moral and economic principles and generated an exact "moral" percentage rate of taxation.
What is so supremely moral about leaving all distribution of wealth to market forces? Certainly we know there's much to be gained by giving markets fairly broad freedom, but pure capitalism can go badly awry, especially when it concentrates distorted economic power into too few hands. Why should a democratic process leading to a progressive tax system not have as much moral weight as the sometimes blind forces of capitalism?
Finally, make no mistake. The middle class HAS benefited from the President's tax plans. I saw $50 per check more with the last one. I'll see the same from this one. My taxes this year wil descrease by about 10%. That's quite significant. Actually, lower-middle income families will do even better with this latest one.
But the way things are going now, most of that benefit you're seeing is from borrowed money. The only difference between you getting that extra $50 per week in your pay check and you borrowing an extra $50 per week on your credit card is who's going to pay back that debt when. As far as I'm concerned, those tax cuts are largely a cynical way of trying to buy votes at the expense of fiscal responsibility.
... But the way things are going now, most of that benefit you're seeing is from borrowed money. The only difference between you getting that extra $50 per week in your pay check and you borrowing an extra $50 per week on your credit card is who's going to pay back that debt when. As far as I'm concerned, those tax cuts are largely a cynical way of trying to buy votes at the expense of fiscal responsibility.
This is what I don't get. People bitch about fiscal responsibility when talking about tax cuts but that's myopic. How much the government taxes us only addresses the revenue side of the equation. The spending side offers as many or more ways to get to your holy grail of fiscal responsibility. Do you really care about balanced budgets or are you just trying to discredit tax cuts? Off the top of my head and looking at just one federal program I can offer a reform that would significantly close the budget gap. I would think that those of you who are supposedly concerned with the deficit would be just as concerned with the level of spending as you are with the President's tax cuts.
The economic slump started 6 monthes before billy was out of office... the internet boom was largely in part to al gore, and ronald reagan. Strange but they added a lot of money to development of what we know now as the internet, as well as, open up the doors for private industry to come in. Clinton was just in the limelight the only thing he did right was bosnia.
Do you really care about balanced budgets or are you just trying to discredit tax cuts? Off the top of my head and looking at just one federal program I can offer a reform that would significantly close the budget gap. I would think that those of you who are supposedly concerned with the deficit would be just as concerned with the level of spending as you are with the President's tax cuts.
Did you really read what I wrote?
I never said there weren't any possible spending cuts with which you could close the budget gap. I said that there is absolutely no sign that the political will exists to make significant cuts. The irresponsibility of the tax cuts lies in making the tax cuts first, and merely letting wishful thinking take care of the corresponding spending cuts.
Real tax cuts + hypothetical spending cuts = real deficits
In case you're ready to spring the supposed economic stimulus closing the gap, or a "starve the beast" argument for cutting taxes, please read what I've already said on those subjects.
... I never said there weren't any possible spending cuts with which you could close the budget gap. I said that there is absolutely no sign that the political will exists to make significant cuts...
Instead of raging against that you rail against tax cuts. It's just politics for you. It's not like you actually care about balanced budgets. I have another equation for you:
Hypothetical concern for fiscal discipline = no political political will for spending cuts.
Comments
Originally posted by billybobsky
how soon ena forgets that the overseas markets were in terrible shape several times during the 1990s esp during the asian crash of 1997...
....don't forget the hedge funds.
Originally posted by trumptman
Really ever article I ever read about the 90's swore that the rich were still getting rich must faster than the poor. That the income gap was growing at a record rate, especially with regard to CEO pay.
Thats true. Normally you say that when the economy is growing the gini coefficient is growing too and the other way round. But what you have experienced since 1968 is that it has grown all the time, even when the economy wasn´t.
Originally posted by Anders
Thats true. Normally you say that when the economy is growing the gini coefficient is growing too and the other way round. But what you have experienced since 1968 is that it has grown all the time, even when the economy wasn´t.
Anders, could you label our graph? Is it showing economic growth or the growth of the gini coeffiecient?
I'm going to assume it is just the gini coeffecient by itself. Do you have one that shows economic growth relative to the gini coeffecient? I would be very interested in seeing that one.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Anders, could you label our graph? Is it showing economic growth or the growth of the gini coeffiecient?
Nick
Sorry. Had so much trouble making a screen dump, convert the image to jpg and place it on my idisk that I forgot. It shows the Gini-coeffiecient.
Originally posted by trumptman
Bush is for giving the tax credit to poor working folks who were excluded this last time. Even though they pay no taxes they get the credit back. (Means they get $1000 for paying nothing) That is not conservative.
1. Of course they pay taxes. Many (though not all) pay no federal income tax, but they all pay taxes.
2. They won't get the full $1000 because of the way it's phased in at different income levels.
3. These types of credits - like the earned income tax credit - were conservative ideas because they were seen as better than welfare.
shetline - I like it. Democrats and Republicans spend equally. The only difference is that Democrats believe in paying for it.
When Clinton beat Bush in 1992, it wasn't as much on the sour economy as people remember. It was largely on the deficit (Perot got in and made that a big issue). Something similar could happen now. Even if the economy does better, if people link "economy" (in general terms) with "deficit and debt," Bush will be seen as bad for the economy. But it has to become something that people care about. Right now it doesn't seem to be on the radar, and of course the media won't say anything that could be interpreted as critical of Bush, so my hopes aren't high.
Originally posted by Anders
Sorry. Had so much trouble making a screen dump, convert the image to jpg and place it on my idisk that I forgot. It shows the Gini-coeffiecient.
Now here would be a thought provoking line graph. gini coefficient, government spending as % of GDP, and federal debt growth.
Regardless of party, I think a graph like that could provoke some discussion.
Nick
It makes me like it more.
Originally posted by groverat
Is "service cuts" supposed to make me dislike the idea of a tax cut? Because it doesn't.
It makes me like it more.
And this coming from someone whose personal blog decries the cuts to veterans benefits ... strange.
Originally posted by BRussell
1. Of course they pay taxes. Many (though not all) pay no federal income tax, but they all pay taxes.
2. They won't get the full $1000 because of the way it's phased in at different income levels.
3. These types of credits - like the earned income tax credit - were conservative ideas because they were seen as better than welfare.
When Clinton beat Bush in 1992, it wasn't as much on the sour economy as people remember. It was largely on the deficit (Perot got in and made that a big issue). Something similar could happen now. Even if the economy does better, if people link "economy" (in general terms) with "deficit and debt," Bush will be seen as bad for the economy. But it has to become something that people care about. Right now it doesn't seem to be on the radar, and of course the media won't say anything that could be interpreted as critical of Bush, so my hopes aren't high.
I know it is a conservative idea. Just goes to show you that I don't agree with all things "conservative."
In case you hadn't gotten the jist, the only think I like less than a Democrat acting like a Democrat is a Republican acting like a Democrat.
I think your insight into the 1992 election is pretty dead on. I have contended that the Republican party has two parts, fiscally conservative and the borrow and spend part. (If someone wants to search I claimed this several months ago too.
Nick
Originally posted by shetline
Let's say that again... "borrow-and-spend Republicans".
Just keep repeating the phrase, until it sinks into the national consciousness as an intrisically joined, organically linked, inseparable set of words. May the word "Republican" forever stick in your mouth until it is eased out by the necessary prelude "borrow-and-spend".
Borrow-and-spend Republicans.
Is this fair? At least as fair as "tax-and-spend Democrats." I'll admit that Democrats have indeed favored one or another type or increase in tax. I'll admit that Democrats have indeed favored spending money on one thing or another.
So, have Republicans ever supported increasing the national debt? Yes. Have they ever wanted to spend any of this borrowed money on anything? Most certainly. So, there you go...
Borrow-and-spend Republicans.
Now, I could try to explore details of predilictions or degrees of spending, taxing, and borrowing. Why sometimes it might be good to cut taxes, good to raise taxes, good to borrow or not borrow. But that really is all besides the point, isn't it?
Borrow-and-spend Republicans.
It's about emotions. It's about rallying the troops. It's about simplifying issues to the point of mind-numbing stupidity... sadly, it would seem, the most effective way to appeal to (or is that manipulate?) the electorate.
Borrow-and-spend Republicans.
Yes, indeedy. I like the sound of that. And it is rather fitting for the current Republican administration and Congress, since with essentially complete control of the national agenda they're borrowing and spending at record-setting levels.
Borrow-and-spend Republicans.
Don't bother us with reasons or excuses for all this borrowing and spending -- war, recession, very questionable claims of stimulating the economy -- this is all about rhetoric here, and any counter-argument only shows you're on the defensive, on the run.
Borrow-and-spend Republicans. Buy-now-pay-later Republicans. Pass-the-bills-to-your-children Republicans. Hope-the-mess-doesn't-come-home-to-roost-while-you're-still-in-office Republicans.
Would I prefer that the political debate took place at a higher level than this? Of course. I'd also prefer it if documentaries on the history of modern medicine or pictures from Mars probes got higher ratings on TV than Survivor. I'm not holding my breath.
Borrow-and-spend Republicans.
Now, admittedly, "tax-and-spend Democrats" has a little more bite to it. Why? I'd hazard a guess that it's because when you're appealing to simple minds, taxing sounds worse than borrowing, because borrowing means you're going to get what you want now without having to pay for it now -- and to the simple mind, later is... well, later.
Borrow-and-spend Republicans.
Still, I like it. It should work with voters who have at least three neurons, rather than just two, to devote to political issues, and that could be enough to swing a few elections here and there.
Borrow-and-spend Republicans.
No, this isn't an original phrase of mine. I've heard a Democrat or two use the phrase from time to time. But they're missing the point of a phrase like this -- it's not very useful when used only as an occasional quip. It needs to be a mantra. De rigeur when mentioning their opponents. Hypnotically repeated until it buries itself into the public mind.
Borrow-and-spend Republicans... Borrow-and-spend Republicans... Borrow-and-spend Republicans... Ooohhhmmm... Ooohhhmmm... Ooohhhmmm...
I have to confess...I didn't read the whole thread. Here is what will absolutely blow everyone's mind though:
I mostly agree with you.
Republicans are supporting things they shouldn't be. Particularly, social spending and entitlements that our government was never intended to be involved in (beyond taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves).
But that's where I think we disagree. I think the problem is not tax cuts, but SPENDING. Politically, some politicians argue "we can't afford a tax cut" or "we can't spend money on a tax cut". Tax cuts aren't spending. Hopefully we can all agree on that.
Don't bother us with reasons or excuses for all this borrowing and spending -- war, recession, very questionable claims of stimulating the economy -- this is all about rhetoric here, and any counter-argument only shows you're on the defensive, on the run.
We'll have to disagree there, too. War, recession and stimulating the economy are all good reasons to spend and/or cut taxes.
Overall, though I can't disagree completely. The difference is that I really do think Republicans stand for "a bit" less spending than do Democrats, and often have a more "private enterprise will fix it and government will screw it up" phisophy. In other words, Laissez-faire. i also support reduced taxation, because out current levels are literally obscene. Republicans are the choice for me, though I'm not happy about all they do today.
Originally posted by SDW2001
We'll have to disagree there, too. War, recession and stimulating the economy are all good reasons to spend and/or cut taxes.
Please don't misunderstand my point... I too believe that these things can be good reasons. My "Don't bother us with reasons or excuses" was in the satirical sense of saying "Don't try to squirm out of the label I'm sticking you with".
Overall, though I can't disagree completely. The difference is that I really do think Republicans stand for "a bit" less spending than do Democrats, and often have a more "private enterprise will fix it and government will screw it up" phisophy.
Here's are my biggest beefs with the general Republican approach to tax cuts:
(1) They aren't cutting spending first, then making cuts later. They're cutting first, running up bigger deficits in the present, and merely hoping that they can either (A) cut spending later, or (B) blame all over-budget spending on the Democrats.
A few Republicans may actually think that if they cut taxes enough the pain of restricted budgets will eventually put spending in order. In other words, use tax cuts as a tool to produce the leaner government they aspire to somewhere down the road.
I don't think that approach will ever work. Why? Because the approach proceeds from a complete misunderstanding of the composition of a budget in a democracy. The people in this country (or any other country for that matter) are always going to be driven by two inconsistent desires: to have lower taxes, and to expect that the government "does something about 'that'".
It's a ridiculous pipe dream to imagine that anything close to a majority of voters will ever be happy with the level of government services that they can get from the level of taxation the wish they had. If the unimaginable ever became true, and a majority of the public clearly and consistently supported both low taxes and the correspondingly low level of services those taxes would pay for, politician's would have a clear mandate to cut both the taxes and the spending at the same time -- no games of cutting now and hoping for the pain to produce the right spending reductions later would be necessary.
The day you see a budget you can approve of top to bottom will be sometime after the day you're declared King. Otherwise, the compromise nature of a democratically produced budget will always be a budget where anyone who looks will see some spending that, in his or her opinion, is wasteful or unnecessary.
(2) Capitalism is the best economic system we've ever had, but in its purest form capitalism has some major flaws (such as Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons) and can produce bizarre distortions in the distribution of wealth.
I have no problem with some people getting rich, even really amazing rich. I think that the dream of being able to strike it rich is an important element of incentive in the economy. On the other hand, however, I don't treat it as a sacred religious precept that any distribution of wealth resulting from capitalism in action is so inherently fair and just that it's somehow wrong to tax the rich more heavily than the middle class and the poor.
Bill Gates is smart, shrewd (maybe too shrewd -- but that's another manner) and hard-working. But he's not 100,000 times smarter, shrewder, or harder working than the average tax payer even though his personal wealth is on the order 100,000 greater. Does Bill Gates do so much wonderful stuff every day that it's worth 400 years of an average person's labor? Not in my book.
Now, I'm not expecting the tax system to be used to try to level out these extremes in any major way. I don't, however, have any problem with a progressive tax system performing a small redistribution of wealth by making the rich pay a moderatly higher percentage of their incomes in taxes, in taxes that can't be easily avoided.
Republican policy of late, however, seems so enamored with wealth and the wealthy that Republicans act like it's almost a crime to suggest that the wealthy aren't entitled to every single penny they've "earned" in as close to a tax-free way as possible.
I don't buy that. I think there are very good reasons to complain about Bush's tax cuts being aimed so much at the wealthy, no matter how many times besides-the-point comments like "Of course the rich get bigger cuts, because they already pay more in taxes" are made. It's not "class warfare" to decry the elimination, and especially the reversal, of progressivism in the tax system.
Thank you Reagan Republicans.
Race to the Bottom (by Jonathan Chait)
Unfortunately, this online version is subscription-only -- so I don't imagine many of you will get to read it.
A great quote from this article, that relates well to what I'd been saying before about cutting taxes in the hopes that that will lead to reduced spending:
This development also illustrates the essential logical flaw in the starve-the-beast argument. It assumes that, as Republicans intentionally sink the country deeper and deeper into debt in order to shrink the government to the size they prefer, Democrats will respond by acting responsibly. But what if Democrates decide that fiscal responsibility is a loser's game? They might instead adopt the mirror image of the GOP strategy: Spends gobs and gobs of money, and hope deficits will grow so high that Republicans will have to stop cutting taxes. To expect the Democrats to continuously put their sense of responsibility ahead of their ideological interests, while Republicans continously do the opposite, is to expect a level of self-abnegation bordering on political suicide.
What this quote leaves out, which I also think is important, is that even in a totally Republican controlled government, I doubt that a majority of Republican really, truly want to cut spending as much as the tax cuts they're making would require, and very few Republicans (or at least their financial analysts who aren't making stump speeches) actually believe the current rhetoric that the economy will be so wonderfully stimulated as to offset the cuts and bring even a severly reduced budget back into balance.
Does it make sense to stomp your feet demanding tax cuts, on some ideological stand over the "rightness" of those cuts, even when you know that in reality the needed matching spending cuts simply will not happen?
Shetline, our government does too much and spends too much. It is involved in too much. It takes too much. Taxation is not a zero sum game. That is, when the economy improves, revenue goes up. To get the economy to improve, large and sweeping tax reform is needed.
I also think you comments about capitalism are telling. Government has NO BUSINESS resdestributing ANY wealth. None. Zero. The problem is our social assistance programs are based on "need". Financial need. Though it may sound good to give some people assistance because they are poor, in reality it hasn't helped the poor that much. The government spends hundreds of billions of dollars over the years...and the problem doesn't get better. Awhile ago I posted links on the poverty percentages compared to government spending. What one sees is that the poverty rate decreased faster when we were spending LESS on poverty programs. Over the past twenty years, the rate is virtually unchanged. Why? Because we have been giving money to the poor, or people "in need". But this, contrary to popular opinion, doesn't work. What we need to do is give social assistance to those who
cannot provide for themselves for a mental or physical reason. In other words, we should take care of those who cannot take care of themselves (as I posted earlier). We should not give people aid simply because they are poor. To do so removes the incentive to become "not poor".
Today's Republican party does spend too much. Politically, this is fairly popular. As I said, I can't disagree with the term "borrow and spend" Republicans. Though, I'd choose that any day over "tax and spend" Democrats. The reason is as I've said, taxation is not zero-sum. I do believe that tax cuts will improve the economy and thereby increase revenue.
As far as cutting taxes: The argument about the rich paying the taxes is valid. They shouldn't be penalized just because they make more...as if the government has more moral authority to take their money for that reason. That's the important concept. It really IS OUR MONEY...not the government's. The government is involved in resdistribution, as this country is well on its way to Democratic Socialism.
Finally, make no mistake. The middle class HAS benefited from the President's tax plans. I saw $50 per check more with the last one. I'll see the same from this one. My taxes this year wil descrease by about 10%. That's quite significant. Actually, lower-middle income families will do even better with this latest one.
I could go on but won't. Though not perfect, there is no question that the Republican party generally stands for the things I do. Now, if they'd just cut spending....
Originally posted by SDW2001
On taxes: I have to disagree with you. You assume that much lower levels of taxation will result in "fewer services". What services?
The phrase I used was "level of services", so it's not so much a matter of number, but how well services like defense, transportation, research, federal law enforcement, intelligence -- and yes, some social services -- are funded.
Shetline, our government does too much and spends too much. It is involved in too much. It takes too much. Taxation is not a zero sum game.
You can believe that as fervently as you like, you still have to budget for political reality. Until a clear political will exists to cut government spending, "starve the beast" tax cuts are only going to give you deficits, not magically produce "correct" spending priorities.
That is, when the economy improves, revenue goes up. To get the economy to improve, large and sweeping tax reform is needed.
But you're missing the tenuous nature of the causality here, and any analysis of magnitude of effect. Boiling it all down to "Taxes go down. Economy picks up. Revenue goes up." may work for stump speech rhetoric, but it's not sound economics.
The historical record for "Taxes go down. Revenue goes up." is far from clear. It's mostly an unproven matter of supply-sider faith. Supposing that the economy does improve, even most conservative economists don't expect the improved economy to completely offset the tax cuts. Revenue will still be down, meaning that the tax cuts will produce long-term structural deficits. Those deficits will likely constrain availability of capital for investments in the future, meaning that Bush may be tying a boat anchor to the economy that's only going to start dragging on the economy sometime after he's out of office. Irresponsibly short-term thinking.
I also think you comments about capitalism are telling.
Telling how? That I don't think like an unreformed 19th-century robber baron?
Government has NO BUSINESS resdestributing ANY wealth. None. Zero. The problem is our social assistance programs are based on "need"... We should not give people aid simply because they are poor. To do so removes the incentive to become "not poor".
You're attacking your own favorite boogey men, not what I actually said.
First of all, if you do indeed support needs-based assistance, that is a redistribution of wealth somewhere above "None. Zero." So your own stand is a matter of degree of redistribution, not absolute insistence against redistribution.
Secondly, you're assuming that redistribution of wealth only means government hand-outs. But simply having a progressive tax system where the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their incomes to support defense, road building, education, science, etc. is a form of redistribution.
Today's Republican party does spend too much. Politically, this is fairly popular. As I said, I can't disagree with the term "borrow and spend" Republicans.
Stuff that is politically popular often becomes law. That's why we call this a democracy. That's why it's still a pipe dream to imagine that cutting taxes is going to lead to proper corresponding cuts in spending, rather than producing deficits.
Though, I'd choose that any day over "tax and spend" Democrats. The reason is as I've said, taxation is not zero-sum. I do believe that tax cuts will improve the economy and thereby increase revenue.
You'll have a hard time finding even conservative economists who think Bush's tax cuts will actually stimulate the economy to such an effective degree that revenue shortfalls will be covered by increased revenue. What historical data does exist for economic stimulation via tax cuts better supports cuts targeted more towards lower- and middle-income families, not the wealthy.
As far as cutting taxes: The argument about the rich paying the taxes is valid. They shouldn't be penalized just because they make more...as if the government has more moral authority to take their money for that reason. That's the important concept. It really IS OUR MONEY...not the government's. The government is involved in resdistribution, as this country is well on its way to Democratic Socialism.
Again, this is a matter of degrees, not absolute right and wrong. If it "really IS OUR MONEY" applies, then all taxation of any degree is wrong. If, however, you accept that some kind and level of taxation is a necessity, it's not like you can drop in your favorite moral and economic principles and generated an exact "moral" percentage rate of taxation.
What is so supremely moral about leaving all distribution of wealth to market forces? Certainly we know there's much to be gained by giving markets fairly broad freedom, but pure capitalism can go badly awry, especially when it concentrates distorted economic power into too few hands. Why should a democratic process leading to a progressive tax system not have as much moral weight as the sometimes blind forces of capitalism?
Finally, make no mistake. The middle class HAS benefited from the President's tax plans. I saw $50 per check more with the last one. I'll see the same from this one. My taxes this year wil descrease by about 10%. That's quite significant. Actually, lower-middle income families will do even better with this latest one.
But the way things are going now, most of that benefit you're seeing is from borrowed money. The only difference between you getting that extra $50 per week in your pay check and you borrowing an extra $50 per week on your credit card is who's going to pay back that debt when. As far as I'm concerned, those tax cuts are largely a cynical way of trying to buy votes at the expense of fiscal responsibility.
Originally posted by shetline
... But the way things are going now, most of that benefit you're seeing is from borrowed money. The only difference between you getting that extra $50 per week in your pay check and you borrowing an extra $50 per week on your credit card is who's going to pay back that debt when. As far as I'm concerned, those tax cuts are largely a cynical way of trying to buy votes at the expense of fiscal responsibility.
This is what I don't get. People bitch about fiscal responsibility when talking about tax cuts but that's myopic. How much the government taxes us only addresses the revenue side of the equation. The spending side offers as many or more ways to get to your holy grail of fiscal responsibility. Do you really care about balanced budgets or are you just trying to discredit tax cuts? Off the top of my head and looking at just one federal program I can offer a reform that would significantly close the budget gap. I would think that those of you who are supposedly concerned with the deficit would be just as concerned with the level of spending as you are with the President's tax cuts.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Do you really care about balanced budgets or are you just trying to discredit tax cuts? Off the top of my head and looking at just one federal program I can offer a reform that would significantly close the budget gap. I would think that those of you who are supposedly concerned with the deficit would be just as concerned with the level of spending as you are with the President's tax cuts.
Did you really read what I wrote?
I never said there weren't any possible spending cuts with which you could close the budget gap. I said that there is absolutely no sign that the political will exists to make significant cuts. The irresponsibility of the tax cuts lies in making the tax cuts first, and merely letting wishful thinking take care of the corresponding spending cuts.
Real tax cuts + hypothetical spending cuts = real deficits
In case you're ready to spring the supposed economic stimulus closing the gap, or a "starve the beast" argument for cutting taxes, please read what I've already said on those subjects.
Originally posted by shetline
... I never said there weren't any possible spending cuts with which you could close the budget gap. I said that there is absolutely no sign that the political will exists to make significant cuts...
Instead of raging against that you rail against tax cuts. It's just politics for you. It's not like you actually care about balanced budgets. I have another equation for you:
Hypothetical concern for fiscal discipline = no political political will for spending cuts.