...then the person you should be supporting is Ron Paul. After that, it's Barack Obama.
A recent report by the non partisan U.S. Budget Watch, a project of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, showed that Mr. Paul's plan would only add less than 500 billion dollars to the deficit by the end of 2016. President Obama would add just a little more than that with 649 billion.
Yet, Mitt Romney would add 700-800 billion dollars to the deficit with 2.6 trillion added to the debt by 2012. Rick Santorum would add over 1 trillion dollars to the deficit by the end of 2016 with the debt rising to 4.5 trillion dollars by 2021. The worst offender, Newt Gingrich, would add 1.5 trillion to the deficit with a whopping 7 trillion dollars added to the debt by 2021.
So, why so much under the plans of the GOP hopefuls? Tax cuts. Well, they worked so well before...
Now that I think about it, they did work. The tax cuts have enabled the right to blame President Obama for all our economic problems.
16 comments:
Isn't it strange how political types of either party don't seem to want to cut spending? I wonder why that is..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OJgWMI0hch8#!
Didn't Obama call for the corporate tax rate to be cut to 28% this last week?
Ahh yes.
Tax cuts cost money, tax increases bring in more money. Yawn.
Except when it doesn't.
Britain's tax increases bring in less money.
Expecting their tax increase to raise an additional £1 billion they instead bring in £509 million less.
The Laffer curve works.
You can't cut your way to growth, GD. It's simply not possible.
Regarding the Laffer curve, ah...no, not really.
"When Reagan cut taxes, the result was less revenue, not more. Revenue from personal income taxes (per person, adjusted for inflation) fell by 9 percent between 1980 and 1984 even though average income (per person, adjusted for inflation) grew by over 4 percent over this period." (Greg Mankiw, Principles of Microeconomics, pg. 170-171).
Now, if taxes are insanely high (which they aren't right now) or if you are insanely rich and on the wrong side of the curve, then revenue in those compartmentalized situations will rise. Mankiw cites the example of Sweden which had an 80 percent tax rate so obviously it that were lowered, Laffer would correct and revenue would rise.
But that's not the case now with people like Mitt Romney paying less than 15 percent in taxes. Taxes are historically low, GD, so the Laffer Curve doesn't apply today. It's also important to note that Bill Clinton raised taxes and left office with a budget surplus.
Growth Mark? The government does not create wealth. What growth are you talking about?
Economic growth. And, please, spare me the catechisms.
Catechisms? Like not cutting your way to growth?
No, the whole belief that the only effect that the government has on an economy is negative. The simple fact that they protect property rights means they are part of wealth creation. Without that consideration, wealth isn't really created.
I know when I or one of your other commentators says 'limited government' or 'less government' what you hear instead is 'anarchy' or 'somalia'. But not once has it been proposed here that the government is not necessary. The conflict in our views is that while you confuse our desire for a limited government with being anti-government, you have yet to ever set an upper limit to how much government is enough.
Second, don't preach to me about 'simple facts'. You can't do simple. You refuse to accept simple facts as presented to you - so you don't get to play 'simple fact' games back to me.
Besides, the 'simple fact' is that the protection of property rights is an aid to efficient wealth creation - not a mandatory precursor to any wealth creation.
Thirdly, this discussion of the government being in the business of protecting property rights is laughable considering your defense of the Obama administration flouting of 100 years of bankruptcy case law that is a bedrock of property right protection. You know - property loaned is protected by stable and predictable contractual dispute resolution? Yeah, that whole paying the unions and the unsecured creditors prior to the secured creditors flies in the face of what was the historical norm. Now the future is uncertain and therefore the risk is greater. Great job protecting property rights.......
Lastly, one could trim 80% of the federal budget and still have enough government to protect property rights. And that's including military expenses. So by that metric 80% of the taxes we pay are indeed a negative effect upon the economy. And you keep demanding increases to those taxes. Way to be on the side of the economy Mark.
I've defined what too much government is several times. I'm not a socialist so I don't think centrally planned economies work. The world has passed socialism/communism/statism by..
The trick is finding the balance and that's where I end up conflicting with folks that have your ideology, GD. First of all, I don't even know what "limited" means to you or many on the right. Most of what I have heard is very vague. Second, I'm certain that you haven't thought of the ramifications of such a shift in our country. We've done very well with welfare capitalism in this country and to shift out of that...if that is indeed what you want...would be detrimental to our economy. You said above that you want to trim 80 percent of the federal budget. Do you honestly think that's on the side of the economy? What sort of things might happen if we went down that path that might not be so good? As always, I'm trying to get you to think critically about this and not just lead with your emotions about government. 80 percent from where?
flouting of 100 years of bankruptcy case law that is a bedrock of property right protection
As I have challenged juris, so now I challenge you. Here is the link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization#Chapter_11_protection
Show me where Judge Gerber "flouted 100 years of bankruptcy law." No Brietbarted sites either.
I've defined what too much government is several times.
Liar. You have avoided ever saying "that is something the govt should not do".
First of all, I don't even know what "limited" means to you or many on the right.
You've been given multiple illustrations - you refuse to accept what we say because it does not accord with what you believe about us.
You said above that you want to trim 80 percent of the federal budget.
That isn't what he said. Read it again and stop trying to force your beliefs onto what we say.
Show me where Judge Gerber "flouted 100 years of bankruptcy law."
It isn't just what happened once it ended up in court, it is what happened in getting it there (starting with it ending up in Gerber's jurisdiction in the first place). I know it is hopeless to lecture you about the difference between secured creditors and unsecured and why the former get preferential treatment in bankruptcy (except for GM). You have your beliefs and no fucking facts are going to change that.
I'd like to know what you think if you are a lawyer as your moniker seems to say. It seems to me, however, that you are wrapping yourself in a law that can be argued many different ways. Everything that I've read from the folks involved is that the government didn't want to get involved but did so faced with the 1,000,000 jobs that would have been lost and the liquidation that would have occurred as there was no private investor at the time that would've touched GM. It would've made our economy far worse.
Second, I'm certain that you haven't thought of the ramifications of such a shift in our country. We've done very well with welfare capitalism in this country and to shift out of that...if that is indeed what you want...would be detrimental to our economy
If I consider most of the welfare capitalism as little more than a wealth transfer program for buying votes, and that if I also consider the government to be very inefficient, and that if I also consider the inefficient transfer of wealth to be a net drain upon the economy....well then I would also have to consider that we have done very well in this country despite the drain of welfare capitalism.
As to the ramifications of such a shift? WTF are you talking about? We were talking about the economy - what are you talking about?
You said above that you want to trim 80 percent of the federal budget.
No I did not. This is another illustration that You do not actually read what we say, you only hear your own caricature of us.
Give this a read for starters.
I don't know if it will do any good. I think your mind is closed and you won't even process this argument.
As I have challenged juris, so now I challenge you. Here is the link...
Ooops, got the quote and the link in the wrong order.
If I consider...
Wow, that's awfully cynical. I guess I don't really agree that it's that bad.
We were talking about the economy - what are you talking about?
The same thing. As I have shown previously, in many states (especially the red ones), 30-40 percent of people's income is from federal social programs. Take that out of the mix and you have a broken economy. Whether you want to admit it or not, the government is a part of this economy. And, as you state above, we have done quite well with those programs in place. #1 economy in the world, 65 trillion dollars of private wealth. I'd say that's pretty good, wouldn't you?
No I did not.
Well, I'm happy to be wrong because that would be disastrous. See how easy it is to admit fault?
Regarding your link, I guess I'm more interested in your analysis of this counter argument. For example, on page 13-14 he talks about theoretical possibilities. What do you think about that information? In addition, this was written in 2010 so nearly 2 years have passed since the re-organization. Have any of Adler's predictions come true? What has "time told?" as he asked at the end?
I also think he turns a blind eye and complains that there should have been a "market test." Doesn't he remember how dry the market was at the time? Again, we're back to the tunnel vision when it comes to the free market. Never mined that it would've made the economy worse...as long as free market ideology was adhered to fervently...
SF: Everything that I've read from the folks involved...
is self-serving garbage. You want to make a meal of that, don't blame me for indigestion, diarrhea and any other ill effects from consuming that kind of shit.
M: Wow, that's awfully cynical.
As opposed to dumb, partisan naiveté?
Like how did a Michigan business incorporated in Delaware end up in a New York bankruptcy court, hmmm?
Post a Comment