Apology + Belated Response to dyn99

[JanS]

dyn…sorry, I’ve been hooked up to a machine all evening. I used 15K as an example…I am not going to tell you or anyone else on here what I actually Make. If you have filed as a self-employed person, I’m sure you realize that not everything is as cut and dried as you think it is.

Thanks for the advice..

Share This

[redblack]

to answer the question posed by dyn99, i, too, would like to close the budget deficits with a combination of tax increases, tax code tweaks, and budget-cutting.

and another industry that we don’t need to subsidize or hand out no-bid contracts for is military contracting.

in an attempt to fix what ails us, i’d like to discuss how we got here.

my problem with republican policy is that it recklessly took a meat axe to tax rates in the early ’80’s when a scalpel was warranted. it was a strong-arm tactic to force democrats to cut the budget, and democrats – predictably – balked at being strong-armed. so the deficits soared.

blaming spending or blaming taxes is a matter of semantics.

“we don’t have enough money for [$government_program]!”

“we have the money for it, but you spend it on candy!”

the bottom line is that when republicans got their massive tax cuts on all forms of income – which stand to this day – they made an implicit promise to invest in industry and create good-paying jobs in this country. or rather, reagan promised us that they would. whether they were ever interested in any such thing is obviously doubtful. in any case, it never happened.

instead, all of the extra purchasing power handed to the top 2% went to creation of more wealth for themselves. trade tariffs that had stood for 200 years to protect our workers’ wages were removed, and entire industries left our shores forever. trillions of dollars sit in the cayman islands and do nothing for the american economy – with the exception of a few tax lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists.

and, yeah, democratic leadership watched them do it and said pretty much nothing.

the deficits became so chronically large, to use CBO’s description, that “we” had to do something unprecedented in 50 years to cover our outlays: we started borrowing from the social security trust fund. it’s the sole reason that that institution is in trouble.

now, in the meantime, wages flatlined and people’s personal debts skyrocketed. yes, there might have been more jobs, but they paid less. union membership dwindled – by 75% – because there were no more factories. purchasing power has left the american middle class, and that purchasing power is what drives our economy, which, in turn, drives other economies because of our reliance on foreign goods.

and social programs designed to help the ever-swelling ranks of the poor are finally in danger due to budget deficits.

this is a vicious circle. it’s more like a vortex whose suction power is increasing.

but if you have evidence that supply-side economics worked, and that half of the population simply failed to become rich by their own devices, i’d like to hear about it. i would also be interested in hearing about other countries where supply-side policies have been successful and sustainable. (i.e. chile doesn’t count.)

you have some good suggestions regarding tax policies, dyn99. they’re far more reasonable than willard romney’s. for example, i understand that the AMT inadvertently catches some poeple where they needn’t be and it needs to be tweaked. but romney has been talking about eliminating it altogether. i think that’s reckless and dangerous, and average, working people certainly won’t be enamored of that idea. in fact, it smacks of class warfare.

the british government needs to close the cayman island and BVI as tax havens. it’s become ridiculous. my general feeling is that if that money is just sitting there offshore and not helping the economy work, it should be taxed. heavily.

i’d also like to see tax policies and incentives designed to attract industry back to this country, despite our demand for higher wages. yes, i understand that that’s a tough sell. but that’s what purpose tariffs and tax incentives or holidays serve.

bring a few industries back to these shores – like making televisions – give people good-paying, long-term employment with competitive benefits, and the economy will be better for it.

regarding budget-cutting, what i’d like to know from conservatives is whose ox you would gore first. i hear a constant drum beat of “cut the budget,” but i never hear any specific, itemized suggestions for doing so. and i mean meaningful, smart cuts. the deficit is $1.2 trillion. the entire budget is around $3.8 trillion. you’re talking about almost 1/3 of the budget – and more, if we’re talking about writing a budget surplus big enough to service interest and start paying principal on the debt.

i’d also like to hear a dedication from our captains of industry that they will work with federal regulators to streamline their industries and standardize a few things, reducing inefficiency and mindless enforcement of stupid shit. like insurance forms.

just a few thoughts…

Share This

[dyn99]

DBP –

I agree that every human being in this country should have access to food and a roof over their head. To that I’ll add basic health care and access to education and job training. Although I think these are local (state/county/city) issues, not federal issues.

But…I would like to see it done a little differently than we typically do.

For social services, rather than the government opening up shelters and rounding up the homeless and forcing them to stay there, I’d like to see the city/county/state administer grant programs to private non-profits who would operate the shelters, and would supplement local funding with private donations. These could be religious organizations, as long as taxpayer funds weren’t going to pay for their “religious operations” (define that however you wish, I don’t want to get into an argument over the definition of religious operations, but needless to say if they’re putting bible verses on little slips of paper with their meals, I don’t want taxpayers paying for it, but I also don’t have a problem with it).

Same for food programs – Let’s give the money to organizations like Northwest Harvest and other local food banks to ensure that everyone has access to food.

I’ll even agree with redblack’s philosophy on this that I would prefer to see these organizations be non-profits. I am not inherently opposed to them being for-profit, but when I think about caring for the poorest and most helpless members of society, I personally think it is immoral be actively trying to increase shareholder returns/value rather than 100% of the funds going toward services to the needy.

These grants should be competitive – they should not just be given to any non-profit with their hand out, but to those who prove the best outcomes, which it would be the responsibility of government to regulate and oversee.

This isn’t a perfect way of doing it, but I don’t think there is a perfect way. I fundamentally think if you fund private organizations that they’ll use the dollars more wisely than if you use it to hire government employees. But that is just my opinion.

On a side note – we cannot solve the problem of the homeless or hungry entirely simply with increased taxpayer funding. Some people (a very, very small portion of the population) would prefer to live on the street. Some because they are addicted to drugs/alcohol and aren’t willing to give that up in order to live in temporary housing/shelters. Others, because they have mental illnesses and are simply not comfortable with living the way society deems “proper”.

That being said, what we can do is provide opportunity to get out of homelessness. And if we provide everyone the opportunity (which includes drug/alcohol treatment and access to medications for mental illnesses), then we’ve done everything we can. The government simply can’t force them to live in a specific place and get sober or take anti-psychotic drugs unless we are willing to incarcerate or institutionalize them, and in my opinion, we can’t do that as a society until they’ve committed a crime worthy of incarceration or are a danger to themselves/others and/or a qualified doctor (or better yet, panel of doctors) deems institutionalization necessary.

Share This

[DBP]

dyn: You’re obviously a thoughtful and compassionate person, just like most conservatives.

You’ve agreed to my main principles, which were 1) that everyone should be housed and 2) that everyone should be fed.

To that you added a third important principle, which is that everyone should have basic health care.

I’m intrigued by your plan for achieving those goals, but all I really care about is that the plan works. So if you’re willing to lead, them I’m willing to follow.

After thinking about it, I’ve decided not to be jealous of rich people.

They do their thing; I do mine.

 

 

   

 

 

 

Just give me my health, a nice bottle of wine, and the Internet . . .

 

Share This

[Author]

Posts