Cut spending and raise taxes?

[c@lbob]

Yes, Jo, you are right.

Our income wouldn’t be within 20% of the amount of adjusted gross income threshhold necessary for a couple to qualify for that expiring (I hope) tax benefit.

Which begs to question of the contributors to this thread who favor the economic strategy of the Republics: Obama’s tax policy is good for me, are you so rich that you’re not in the same boat as me, did you not pay less federal imcome tax last year?

Share This

[redblack]

this debate is subject to so much ideology that sometimes it’s hard to remember that it’s not necessarily a class warfare argument.

if you make over $250K per annum, anything over that $250K is taxed at a higher rate.

the smart thing to do – and i think what the administration is trying to emphasize – is to invest any income over your first $250K back into the economy instead of taking it as income. win/win. you avoid higher taxes on income over $250K, invest that money into your business, and stimulate the economy.

the corporate media is patently ignoring new legislation that gives incentive for businesses to do just that by hiring new workers, investing in new technology, increasing energy efficiency, etc.

instead, we get diatribe and tired, old supply-side rhetoric. i don’t think it’s going to fly in the mid-terms, and i think republicans are going to hand themselves a nasty october surprise.

Share This

[c@lbob]

redblack,

You’ve introduced a very good point to stress when talking about ending the Bush billionaire pampering.

Of course the richies won’t like it if they are required to do something, they never do. That’s why they don’t want their capital gains taxed, or to pay their workers.

We are always treated to the promise of a big payoff in jobs and infrastructure by businesses seeking tax breaks. I’d like to see a great deal more proof of the actual bang for the buck.

So, all those mostly mythical “small” businesses, like Bechtel Engineering for gods sake, put that excess cash you are all salivating for into jobs and infrastructure for real. Keep that taxible income under the limit and you can keep the benefits of a larger business.

Share This

[JoB]

redblack..

i suspect republicans won’t get the october surprise they are hoping for here…

if democrats make the effort to vote

and that is a big if…

but i fear they may do better elsewhere :(

i want you to know i am really open to being totally wrong about this.

Share This

[WorldCitizen]

C@lbob & JoB:

I like these points. I’m just concerned you’re making an argument from 2006 (the date of that chart in the link you provided). I’ve looked to find more recent info to back up these statements but haven’t found anything. Do you have a link to something more recent from a reliable source to quote?

Share This

[c@lbob]

WorldCitizen:

You do know that the Congressional Budget Office is, right? The graph is just a representation of their reports. If you don’t trust it, go the the CBO site and graph it yourself.

What has changed between 2006 and now? The graph mapped out the projection, what is different? The budget numbers are available for all to see.

To review, the CBO made a projection, time passed, the projection was proven true by the numbers. Don’t expect the CBO to came back now and rub it in. They are a part of Congress, you know. Wouldn’t be prudent.

Share This

[WorldCitizen]

c@lbob:

Yes I know what the CBO is (no need to get shitty about it, man). Yes, I understand what the graph is. No I don’t see how it’s related to 2010. There’s a ramp up in the involvement in Afghanistan, TARP, the implementation of Healthcare reform legislation, (which will actually help lower the deficit) and CHIP just to name a few differences.

The graph on the site has an estimated budget deficit as of 2009 to be just below 600 Billion dollars. In 2010 the actual budget deficit is roughly 1.3 TRILLION dollars. So, yes, I think there is a discrepancy in the numbers. I also see no useful info to help graph out the numbers comprising the percentage of the national deficit. This is why I am asking for updated and accurate info from those of you putting out these links/numbers.

I would like to believe the primary driver for our national deficit is tax cuts (or deferrals), I just see no such info online to support this. So I actually can not graph it myself. I will, however continue to ask for people to verify the claims they make online.

Share This

[c@lbob]

You wanted the CBO to hit the number on each year since 2003? I don’t think the advertise themselves as clairvoyent. No one could predict anything about the economy for more than five years very accurately.

Actually, they overstated the cumulative increase in public debt from 2002 to 2009 by about 20%

The yearly numbers they predicted actually track the real deficit (the increase in the national debt from year-to-year) pretty well through 2007. Then the real defict doubled then tripled the projection.

There are none so blind . . .

Share This

[HMC Rich]

I have to agree with World Citizen that more current data is needed. But, if numbers are true then we should look at how we can turn the negative to a positive. Ignoring the entitlements is not an answer.

47% of citizens pay federal taxes. 50% of what is taken in is paid by 10%. Bush tax policies made less citizens pay taxes. How could he?

If we want everyone to pay their fair share (whatever that is), we should close all loopholes, adjust the rates properly, and quit spending so much?

I know the Statist and Federalist have differing opinions on what to do. So we will always be able to argue with each other. (wink)

We obviously need to tax people for our infrastructure and to help certain people and some programs. But I don’t think the government (local, county, state, and Federal) should be able to take 50% of what everyone makes. Maybe you do. I work for my family first, not the government. They can hire me if they want, but that means I am paid by the citizens.

Think about this. If you are a citizen, you pay your taxes, then you give to charities, and if you are religious you tithe 10% to your church. That doesn’t leave a lot left over, so you have to cut back. But I can’t just cut back on taxes, can I? Anyhow, the secularists should have more money! Just kidding. I may believe in God but I worship Zippy’s burgers and a few other establishments that happily accept my discretionary spending. MMMMMM. Zippy’s

Share This

[WorldCitizen]

Still no excuse to state tax cuts are the primary driver of our national debt. The point is that the data is out of date. They did a good job forecasting out a year and a half…cool. Still not valid. I want info based on the real world, not 4 year old inaccurate estimates. I think that by putting out information that is inaccurate and claiming it’s accuracy is in effect doing what the other side does. I want the progressive section of this country to live in the real world. I want policy and ideas based on actuality.

HMC Rich:

Ignoring entitlements may not be the answer but they are not worth looking at at this juncture. With the explosion of deficit spending, cutting back on entitlement programs won’t do shit, as they make up an even smaller portion of the problem. How people tithe to their religious institutions or donate is their own personal choice and isn’t the Government’s problem.

The ideas needed to turn this country around actually seem pretty clear, regardless of what the talking heads say.

1) Close all tax loopholes for everyone (businesses as well as individuals) (that includes religious institutions)

2) Implement a flat tax (because it’s the only fair way to do it).

3) Cut defense spending by at least 15%

4) Re-introduce Glass-Stegall in it’s original form.

5) Implement universal healthcare (not required health insurance)

6) Make private financing of elections illegal.

7) Legalize Marijuana.

8) End any and all criminal mandatory minimum sentencing.

9) Deny unions’ ability to keep workers employed who’s skills are not up to date in their position, while introducing a performance based system of compensation as their standard.

10) Invest in research and development of renewable energy sources.

The title of the original post is ‘Cut spending and raise taxes?” The answer is: yes and no. Cut certain spending. Create an equitable tax system. Don’t cut them, but use them well.

Easy to say. Hard to pull off in the real world.

Share This

[WorldCitizen]

And by “the real world” I mean the unfortunate political reality we find ourselves locked into today.

Share This

[redblack]

@#34 HMC: i have to focus on this:

“47% of citizens pay federal taxes. 50% of what is taken in is paid by 10%.”

are you advocating for the top 10% to only pay 10% of the country’s tax revenue – when they make upwards of 60% of the nation’s income and hold close to 90% of its wealth?

and you know that entitlements account for less than 10% of the deficit, right? the way you use it, i don’t believe the generic word “entitlement” refers to the billions of dollars in subsidies – our tax dollars – given directly to industries that are turning record profits. like big oil. don’t get me started on agribusiness, which has had government and lobbyist help crushing small farmers for decades.

you really can’t compare welfare for people with welfare for corporations. the economics of scale are lopsided, and it ain’t in favor of the “welfare queens” or the farmers.

Share This

[redblack]

@worldcitizen:

“9) Deny unions’ ability to keep workers employed who’s skills are not up to date in their position, while introducing a performance based system of compensation as their standard.”

can we do something similar for boards of directors and CEO’s?

Share This

[WorldCitizen]

redblack:

I would love to. Don’t think it’s possible. I’d like to see a corporate culture where CEOs make no more than one or two thousand percent of what the lowest paid person in the company makes. If there is a way to do it I’m all ears.

It seems that there would be screaming from the side of big business accusations of Socialism (more than there is now) and threats of moving business overseas (more than they are now). I think this second possibility is a real danger of capping CEOs pay.

Share This

[DP]

WorldCitizen: Where in the world are you now? ;-)

On the question of businesses moving overseas if we cap CEO salaries . . . yeah, I suppose that could happen. However, I get the feeling the everybody who’s gonna jump ship has already jumped. You might have noticed that we don’t have much of a manufacturing base left in this country any more. Well, that’s why.

What’s left are a lot of service-type jobs (baristas, teachers, health care workers) and a lot of “brain workers” (engineers, software developers, lawyers). These aren’t the kinds of jobs you can get somebody in India to do for ten cents on the dollar, so for now, most of them are staying put.

You know, it strikes me as odd that every time someone mentions capping CEO salaries, a shudder goes through the crowd. There’s some kind of unspoken agreement that CEOs are exceptionally wise and talented individuals who are so useful to society that we would simply shrivel up and die without them.

I beg to differ.

Remember a few years ago when Washington Mutual was riding so high? They had some 20 billion (or whatever) in investments and new branches were popping up faster than McDonalds franchises. Everybody thought their CEO was the second coming of Christ.

And look where Washington Mutual is today.

Same place as Enron.

Same place as Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns.

Same place as a hundred other Fortune 500 companies run into the ground by one of these billion dollar babies.

I don’t care how much business savvy someone claims to have. I don’t care where they got their degree or what kind of connections they have. I don’t even care how much money they’re making for their precious shareholders.

There’s no way you’re going to convince me that a guy who spends his days on the golf course and pulls $30 million a year is worth six hundred times as much to society as a lady who spends her days in a classroom. I’m just not buying it.

I’m not for capping CEO pay, but I am for bringing back the 90% top tax rate. Let the billion dollar babies turn tail and run if they want. I say we’re better off without ’em.

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/

Share This

[DP]

We do seem to be getting more polarized, don’t we?

Share This

[JanS]

from today’s NYT: Letter to the Editor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/opinion/l22krugman.html?ref=opinion

Share This

[redblack]

@#39 worldcitizen:

imho, let ’em squeal. this country has deep roots in socialism.

and if someone would raise some damn tariffs, we could stop this outsourcing b.s. china protects their currency and their trade markets aggressively, but the suggestion of the u.s. doing the same thing causes apoplexy in the investor class. (i realize they want a world without borders, but most of us are stuck on this quaint nationalism thing.)

anyway, sorry about the rant. so no salary caps for CEO’s, regardless of their actual worth. i guess raising taxes is one way to mitigate their damage.

regarding polarization, it stuns me every time i realize that the teabaggers have no idea what the boston tea party was really about. or when they claim they’re the revolution.

why can’t they see that they’re the counterrevolution, and they’re carrying water for people who don’t care about them?

Share This

[WorldCitizen]

We need some US senators with the guts to force change from the ground up. Anyone who thinks the president can come in and buck Congress is living in fantasy land. Just look at Obama. Great ideas (for the most part) and no way to implement them. Now he looks inept.

Share This

[DP]

Obama’s problem isn’t that he’s inept. His problem is that he’s been trying to steer a middle-of-the-road course on every single issue.

He hasn’t gone down in flames on anything. But by the same token, there’s nothing he can point to and say: “That was a clear win!”

On war, for example, he’s tried to appease the hawks by winding down slowly in Iraq, while actually winding up in Afghanistan. This is losing him support from the Left, but not gaining him any on the Right, since the Right hates his guts anyway.

On health care, he got us a bill, and he did win us some changes, but the insurance companies are still in place as middlemen. Bad idea. Maybe he should have gone for the full meal deal (public option or single payer) instead of settling for a side of fries.

On financial regulation, it was the same thing. Obama left most of the Old Guard in place and chose not to take a stand on the parts of the reform bill he really wanted. As a result, we’re still in thrall to the big banks and investment houses.

Stimulus package — Same deal. He let Van Jones go without a fight and significantly underfunded the package. A step forward? Yeah. A clear and present victory? Nah.

 

 

Could Obama have gotten his way on ALL these things? No. Politics doesn’t work that way. But if he’d shown a little more political courage on some of them, if he’d taken a stand now and then, he’d at least have some real wins to his credit, instead of all these half-measures and stalemates.

Yes, Congress gets some of the blame for this. But I don’t hold with the idea that Obama’s hands are tied, that he really can’t do anything. After all, if you’re a young Black man who can come from behind and defeat the odds-on favorite First Lady Democrat (not to mention the white War Hero Republican) you’re no lame duck.

Or rather, Ducky.

—<shameless self-promotion> David </shameless self-promotion>

Share This

[WorldCitizen]

I’m not saying Obama is inept, he just looks that way because of the lack of clear victories. I’m just saying change could be implemented effectively if there were enough support in congress for these things. It hurts Obama to promise big and not be able to deliver…

I think it’s far easier to win a campaign than bring the opposing forces together.

Share This

[redblack]

DP: regarding your financial regulation comments, i read an interesting quote by neal stephenson the other day that i think sums up obama’s choices like this:

“the best lock-designers are the people who have a talent for picking locks.”

i think the choice of somers, geithner, et al, was largely to protect obama from wall street. they obviously have the power to bring down politicians on a whim.

Share This

[DP]

[ Very apt observations, rb and WC. ]

I have some sympathy for Obama. On his first day in office, he was no handed no less than two wars, a financial meltdown, and a very vocal group of haters (led by Fox News) who were determined to see him fail.

That’s gotta be discouraging.

There’s still time for him to succeed. If he can get us all the way out of Iraq and Afghanistan, that will assure him a place in my heart.

Fingers crossed, everybody.

Share This

[Author]

Posts