patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,196,089 comments by 14,053 users - DhammaStep online now
Federal Surplus and Our future: Raising tax for the rich
invite response
2010 Nov 30, 1:09pm 12,762 views 58 comments
« First « Previous Comments 51 - 58 of 58 Search these comments
Tenouce and Ray,
OK, I am not here to discuss the federal surplus being real or not. But based on your fact, when Clinton raised the tax, the deficit was definitely lower. If we had $110+ billion deficit a year, it seems another small increase in tax on 2% of the population help balance our federal budget. It seems like a small price to pay. My point is that we must first balance the federal budget, because of the reasons I have sighted.
We all know what happened after we had our tax reduced. For the last 10 years, our unemployment went from 4% to 10%. So we need to ask ourselves if lowering the tax really help the jobs.
Oh, let's not pin the federal deficit on Obama alone for the last 2 years. That seems unfair.
tatupu70
2010 Dec 7, 6:30am
So, either you go directly after their WEALTH (assets) or cut spending or increase the nation’s GDP growth rate (which increases the take you get from rich people). That’s the only way.
Or you do all three.
I don't want to pick fights with individuals, it's too easy to get caught up in petty arguments - I find this discussion too interesting to risk that! I do, however, want to point out that there may be a flaw with the theory that we should blame X party (the one with the majority in congress) for all increases in spending during a given time period.
For instance, increases in spending under a democrat controlled congress while Bush was in office should be given more thought that simply saying "They were in control, spending increased during that time, therefor they are to blame". Why did spending really increase, and what was it spent on? We could argue all day about whether or not the Iraq war was right or wrong, but the FACTS are that the Bush administration pushed the war ... and the news media made anyone who argued seem like a traitor. And in the end, there were no weapons of mass destruction or links to the specified terrorist groups. Some of the 'intel' turned out to be outright fabricated (the yellow-cake evidence of a nuclear program...). So should we blame democrats for caving in and giving Bush the money he needed to fight the war?
(I would argue yes ... but a greater stake of the blame lies elsewhere imo).
Â¥
2010 Dec 7, 11:29am
OK, I am not here to discuss the federal surplus being real or not.
Total public debt during Clinton budget years
One can see that in 2000 total government debt went down.
The debt held by the public (total public debt less SSTF etc) is the more important figure, actually, since if we only had SSTF debt we would be a happy place.
In this chart you can see that Clinton left Bush with the same amount of debt he inherited from the Reagan/Bush years. Not bad.
In real terms the debt declined 20% over the 8 budget years.
Â¥
2010 Dec 7, 11:32am
Only in the last two years, as the housing malinvestment bubble burst. Before that, unemployment had been falling (as was the deficit spending).
IT WAS THE HOUSING BUBBLE THAT WAS SUPPORTING THESE JOBS and generating the tax revenues.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/HHMSDODNS
And it was the TAX CUTS that primed the housing bubble in the first place.
In a very real way the Bush tax cuts have destroyed my country, just like Japan's idiocies in the 80s and 90s have destroyed theirs.
marcus
2010 Dec 7, 11:29pm
tax and spend is inherently a balanced budget approach.
Borrow and spend leads to increasing deficit, which is the GOP modus operandi.
I agree completely. This and other policy differences lead to the rather surprising conclusion that the "liberals" are in fact (also) the conservatives.
Not sure what the republicans are besides radical, angry, and in many cases downright unintelligent.
RayAmerica
2010 Dec 7, 11:41pm
I really do think a simple “oops†would have reflected on you much better. Like Ray (are you Ray ?),
Thanks for the compliment ... Shrek sounds incredibly smart.
marcus
2010 Dec 10, 9:23am
And regarding the spending stats you did look up — did it cover ALL spending? See, with government stats there is spending and then there is spending and then there is spending…
I posted them and gave a link. But you were too busy knowing everything to check them out.
Sorry, but no. When your revenue/income falls and you can’t raise more but you don’t cut spending to match, then you automatically have a deficit caused by too much spending. It is as simple as that.
We are talking about spending and revenues for the same year. These are simultaneous events. But don't worry about it, you lost almost all credibility way before this.
shrekgrinch says
But it was under the Reps that such borrow and spending went down while it increased when the Dems took over in 2006, as the graph proves.
I get it (Ray) you don't take the time to even comprehend my point, let alone look at the data, which is more directly related to your assertion than the deficit bar graph you posted. I could say that I was arguing for the sake of others, but I think most paying attention probably have you on ignore already. Or, if not, soon will.
« First « Previous Comments 51 - 58 of 58 Search these comments
Some people are utterly confused about the fact that some people who are preaching higher tax for the rich are motivated by the pure hatred for the rich.
It is actually not about the hatred toward rich. It doesn't involve emotion. It is about balancing the federal deficit. Because Republicans have instituted the tax cut; our social services, education system and highway system have been steadily shrinking. Our nation had the best education system, best highway system and social services. Because we had the best education system, we were able to forester the best and brightest in our country to contribute to our society. Now because of the deficit, our school is shrinking. Only the wealthy, that is 1%, can afford to give their children the best education. Our federal deficit is robbing the future and dreams from the children whose parents can't afford to give them private education.
And for those of you who believe the raising the tax for the rich would eliminate our jobs. Well, raising or lowering tax for the rich has no bearing on companies from hiring or laying off workers. The company's decision to hire workers has always been driven by the demand for increased production of goods and services. The companies will not hire, just because the spending (paying tax) is decreased.
And in order to increase the demand for the goods and services, the money must be allocated to someone who would most likely spend it to acquire goods and services. The rich can afford to save the money which will sit in the bank only contributing 1% to 2% to the economy. The middle to lower income earners can't afford to save it, so they will spend it to purchase the services and goods. The contribution of the money is 100% to the economy. While rich folks, regardless of tax, more than likely can afford not to change their spending habit, middle to lower income earners will change their spending habit significantly even with a minute fluctuation in their take home money. The rich has accumulated their wealth in the past 10 years. It is time to give a little. Taxing the rich has profound positive effect on our economy
as well as our federal budget.
So besides the historical facts, the logic is pretty simple. If we raise the tax for the rich and give that money to our government, the government can spend most of it on something more meaningful for our future and economy. The money that government spend has more profound effect on economy. It creates jobs to provide better government services, such as education, etc. Raising the tax for the middle to lower income earners will have a negative impact on our economy, as I mentioned, because it will have severe impact on the consumption. Less consumption by the majority of the population has more impact than by 1 to 2% of the population.
Lastly, we need to have best education system to compete with countries like China, Japan or India. As long as we maintain the technology edge over these countries, we can maintain such jobs here in US. Other wise, we will even lose those high skill jobs to these countries. It is time for us to save our country. Don't let Republicans help the rich at the cost of our nation and our future. We can't afford $700 billion hole in the federal budget by giving tax break to the 1 to 2% of the population. Our past generation has paid their fair share for our future. It is time our generation pay our fair share for the future and dreams of our children.
#politics