Budget talks: This is getting nasty

OK, let's look at some numbers:

Year/top tax rate/unemployment
1987 38.5 6.2
1988 28 5.5
1989 28 5.3
1990 28 5.6
1991 31 6.8
1992 31 7.5
1993 39.6 6.9
1994 39.6 6.1
1995 39.6 5.6
1996 39.6 5.4
1997 39.6 4.9
1998 39.6 4.5
1999 39.6 4.2
2000 39.6 4.0
2001 39.1 4.7
2002 38.6 5.8
2003 35 6.0
2004 35 5.5
2005 35 5.1
2006 36 4.6


What we see is that the largest percentage jump, from 31 to 39.6, actually saw unemployment go down EVERY YEAR THE RATE WAS 39.6. We saw a small rise in unemployment when the rate went from 28 to 31.

Is the economy the same today as it was then? Of course not. But it's false logic to imply tax increases would automatically lead to companies holding off on hiring. What happens if taxes increase and the economy trends upward thanks in part to a deal getting passed? Companies could see increased profits that could more than make up for any tax increases.

Of course, don't let the numbers get in the way of the GOP mantra.

 

Cantor to America: Drop Dead.

 

What a crock of shit. Nothing foolish about that statement. The GOP wants to take care of the rich and everybody else can go eff themselves.

 

You got that right.

 

Discretionary non-defense government spending has not increased in decades and that's a fact you have to acknowledge if you ever want to get to the bottom of this. This isn't because of pork barrel projects run amok (or, at least no more than they were before debt started skyrocketing). Spending on non-defense discretionary spending is the same as it was in 2000, when we had our best budget year since, what, Ike?

What has gone up is the cost of discretionary defense spending (it has doubled, thanks to two wars) and the cost of entitlement programs. These are not things that happen because government keeps reaching for new money -- well, in the case of the wars it is, but are ready to take the position that we should have sat out of Afghanistan to save costs? Iraq? Where was that argument in 2001?

What has gone down is tax revenue thanks to the Bush tax cut and then the recession. So the gap is bigger than the sum of the added cost of war and the mounting cost of SSI and medicare/medicaid.

So the solution is easy: You address the causes of the gap. You increase revenue by eliminating tax loops and yes, maybe raising taxes in some areas. You do some tough cuts to entitlements. You bring these wars to an end.

But those things aren't being addressed. Instead, as you say, we're continuing down the path we've been on since the beginning of the Bush tax cuts.

I'd love to believe low bargain-basement low taxes would produce enough revenue to pay for reasonable and necessary government services. I'd love to have the cake and eat it too. But the grown up in me knows that shit ain't true. All you have to be able to do is read a graph. There's a happy medium somewhere and we are certainly below it.

So the grown-up thing to do would be raise taxes where it's needed most -- probably the payroll tax, and by increasing the cap -- because that one directly addresses one of the largest causes of the deficit. The SSA said eliminating the cap (but not increasing benefits beyond where the current cap is) would eliminate the deficit as it relates to SSI by itself. But that won't happen politically and probably shouldn't. But increasing the cap would go a long way and mixing that in with, say, increased retirement age would probably bridge the gap.

But nope. No new taxes. Although it's CLEAR that the entitlement issue isn't about wasted money in government programs.

I'd also love to believe that if we quit building bridges to nowhere and paying $10k for a toilet in the Pentagon then the budget would take care of itself. But that's not the case. It's two wars that had the support of the people at the onset -- nobody seemed concerned about costs at the time -- entitlement increases we knew were coming already (the baby boomer thing had been a concern for decades), lowered tax revenue and then a fiscal crisis built on a bad Wall Street gamble and nothing there to say "whoa" before the house of cards came down.

So we are where we are. The boogie man of government spending is really just about paying for social security, medicare and medicaid and two wars.

 

MichaelGee -- I know you speak for despondent liberals everywhere girding for what appears to be the inevitable cave. But here's why I think Obama "looks weak" -- because the Tea Party dingbats (inspired by Karl Rove) have forced every Republican to march in lockstep against Obama. It's clear that if Obama says the sky is blue, the Tea Party will say it's green, and cut taxes. The most amazing thing is, the Tea Partiers have some Republicans backing off positions they once held, because Obama supports them now.

At this point, the electorate -- and I mean the ones who show up -- consists of many, many Tea Partiers who also would love to see Obama fail. It would be a liberal wet dream, perhaps, to see Obama hold firm on raising taxes on the rich and eliminating the Bush tax cuts, except that there's at least one body of Congress which will never pass it, and another that can use all sorts of shit to make sure it doesn't pass there, either.

What we have with the Tea Party is a group of politicians and supporters that are rabid and have as their whole appeal that they won't compromise on ANYTHING. That puts Obama (and Boehner) between the rock and the hard place of doing what they think is best for the country -- and without the Tea Party, Obama and Boehner have settled this ages ago -- and the cold realization that these howler monkeys are willing to drive the country off a cliff for ideology's sake, except they have no fucking clue they're about to go off it.

I think Obama can show more leadership and stand tougher. But with the Tea Party (and its many voters) taking the rest of us hostage -- and that's what they've done -- Obama (and Boehner) are now stuck with watching the country go off a cliff, or doing something, no matter if it seems odious to some, to stop the car.

To me, the most revealing leadership test has been Boehner's kneecapping. Boehner is acting tough now only because Eric Cantor has shoved his hand up Boehner's ass and is the ventriloquist behind Boehner.

 

You can expect little else from a deranged reactionary who represents a portion of (at its worst) one of the most reactionary cities in the country, many of whose citizens still revere the Stars and Bars to the degree Marge Schott revered her own hero . . .

 

Wolverines!

 

Obama is asking for a blank check to finance his spending spree before the next election. He spent all this money to "create and save jobs," spending that did not work. Now the bill has come due and Obama wants bailed out until after the election...when, should he somehow win, the spending spree would continue. But this is all the Tea Party's fault, right?

 

Job Creators!

 

Here you go, Az...educate yourself

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/07/the_democrats_demagoguery_paints_them_into_a_corner.html

 

American Thinkers!