idrankwhat

Not anymore.

I disagree. This crisis has been the political strategy for many on the right for decades. Now they have what they wanted. The conservative answer, which evolved in the late 1970s, would be dubbed "starving the beast" during the Reagan years. The idea -- propounded by many members of the conservative intelligentsia, from Alan Greenspan to Irving Kristol -- was basically that sympathetic politicians should engage in a game of bait-and-switch. Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government's fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit. That pretty much sums up our current situation. Ok, I'll bite What do you think we should do then? Start by agreeing to compromise. Our government is indeed bloated and needs targeted cutting. But we also need to recognize that revenues are insufficient. This graph shows the that revenues were, for the most part, tracking expenditures until 2000 at which point spending increased and revenue decreased. IMO, agreeing to cut government waste (admittedly a broad statement) and letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a good start . Again, the tax cuts had an expiration date for a reason and we're now seeing what that reason was. But everyone is going to have to contribute to the solution which is the essence of compromise. If people want the market to drive our recovery during this global downturn then that market needs confidence. Two things are limiting that confidence. One is the question of whether or not our leaders can work together to maintain our credit worthiness. The other is our long term debt outlook. You can't fix either problem without working together. So our leaders have a choice, they can compromise or they can play election politics and risk screwing everyone by trashing the economy for anticipated political gain.

I disagree. This crisis has been the political strategy for many on the right for decades. Now they have what they wanted. The conservative answer, which evolved in the late 1970s, would be dubbed "starving the beast" during the Reagan years. The idea -- propounded by many members of the conservative intelligentsia, from Alan Greenspan to Irving Kristol -- was basically that sympathetic politicians should engage in a game of bait-and-switch. Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government's fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit. That pretty much sums up our current situation.

Actually, numbers in the 60's indicate just the opposite with regard to that poll. Sixty-four percent of people questioned in the CNN/ORC survey say they want a budget plan with both spending cuts and tax hikes for businesses and higher-income Americans. And also from the article: "Most Americans think Obama has acted responsibly in the debt ceiling discussions so far, but nearly two-thirds say the Republicans in Congress have not acted responsibly. Fifty-one percent say they would blame the GOP if the debt ceiling is not raised; only three in ten would blame the president. "

What's wrong with that? It sounds reasonable. He's calling for "compromise". And he's offered compromise. Boehner, on the other hand, is saying "no compromise. Forget what the American people want. It's my way or the highway". But it's what I've come to expect from the party of "no". Personally I thought Boehner was a jerk. Obama did a pretty good job of blaming Washington politics for the problem. Boehner blamed Obama for everything. He took no responsibility for helping create this mess when he was one of the key players in the "starve the beast" strategy that caused much of the trouble that we're in. I think that's the idea.

The lobbyist plutocracy runs the show. Unions are only an example, as are banks, pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, USPA, etc. Of course some of those lobby groups have more "free speech" on their balance sheets than the others and are "listened" to accordingly. As for "Capitalism or Socialism", I vote "all of the above". It works.

But in this case we're talking about the carried-interest loophole which allows hedge fund managers to consider the money that they receive for their services as capital gains instead of income.

I will admit that everyone needs to be a part of this solution but I have a hard time with a simple across the board tax increase on everyone. There is a minor segment of our society which has profited immensely and vastly disproportionately over the last three decades from the current tax system. Closing tax loopholes, which keep the effective tax rate for these folks lower than that of the middle class, is imperative IMO. So is increasing the capital gains tax. I can think of no reason that these people should have a marginal tax rate of 15% on much of their earnings, especially when you consider that the effective tax rate for nearly everyone is lower than the marginal tax rate.

Well, in a debate like this, the anwer would be (for a liberal) what ever they say it is For the rest of us 2 + 2 =4

I think Kent was working with some different weed before he went to tackle the kudzu. Must have shared it with the associated press reporter too. Looks more like Excalibur to me after some moistened bint lobbed it at someone.

Former CEO of Godfather's Pizza. Speaks in animated sound bites that can be either taken seriously by some or if determined to be incorrect or too extreme, can be dismissed as satire or taken out of context. Running for the GOP nomination for President. edited to add: I was going to use the label that is often used to describe him which is "pizza tycoon" but didn't. I guess that makes me "racist".....or not. I'm so confused.

The last decade (or three) saw probably the most vast upward transfer of wealth in our history. That money is not in the economy. It didn't "trickle down". That's the problem. It's not a zero sum game, and billvon has debunked it thoroughly enough in the past. I missed that. I'd be interested to see that "debunking".

The last decade (or three) saw probably the most vast upward transfer of wealth in our history. That money is not in the economy. It didn't "trickle down". That's the problem.

"Bernie Goldberg is now calling on all conservatives in America to start playing the 'race card' whenever a liberal makes an offensive statement about Herman Cain and others." Isn't THAT racist? I think Ol Bernie is still feeling a bit stung by his earlier encounters with Jon.

However, well all know that tax rates are meaningless. Effective tax rates are a different story.

I agree with the sentiment however not the whole statement. Oil exploration will happen regardless of subsidies. As for the green energy development, out of the two it is the only sustainable option.

Look at the chart. Note what happened to revenues after 2000. The Heritage Foundation sees one problem in this chart. I see two. (it's a lib thing) I'll say it again, the Bush tax cuts had a sunset for a reason.

And that's the way it's supposed to work. You provide subsidies in order to encourage development in areas which will benefit the country. Reagan decided against solar in favor of petroleum. Solar left. California mandated zero emission vehicles and within a decade we had the emergence of a successful electric vehicle. The Feds backed the auto industry lawsuit, ending the mandate, and those cars were destroyed, market demand be damned. The Feds instead decided to implement the SUV tax loophole and look which vehicles hit the road. Yes, it's social engineering but to a certain degree we need that sometimes in order to foster the behavior that's in the best interest of the country. We just need to make sure that that social engineering is beneficial to the country and not parasitic. But having said that I also agree that our tax code needs to be overhauled. It does favor the wealthy disproportionately. Of course you could spin it as a job creator. There are quite a few people who make a living interpreting it for others.

Sorry, forgot to mention that I agree completely with your examples of government waste.Heavy punishment is due those who willfully defraud our government, including the legislators who enable and facilitate that fraud.

Who are you wanting to design this economy based on green energy ? the politicians ? or free enterprise. Both. in the mid 80's the government cut subsidies for private industry development for solar energy in favor of subsidies for the petroleum industry and look where that's gotten us. Many of those AMERICAN companies moved overseas to other countries such as Germany. Now Germany is a world leader in green energy development. If we continue this habit we'll be destined to continue to rely on foreign sources for our energy. The "problem" with solar in our society is that the source is free and hitting everyone every day.

I wouldn't say that you get nothing for your tax dollars. We may not always like what we bought but we still got something. http://www.whitehouse.gov/taxreceipt

I wasn't talking about the Ryan budget, however that plan has serious problems as it is seriously fiscally irresponsible. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/03/matt-miller/matt-miller-blasts-deficit-debt-implications-paul-/

I agree. An outsider can't do it alone. An untainted outsider also has a hard time getting elected while money is considered "free speech". As I pointed out earlier Obama had some outsider ideas regarding health care but he caved when he realized that he had to bargain with the health care industry lobbyists to get even a portion of what he wanted. How does an outsider get his point across when the media that is the vector for those talking points is owned by the same interests which prefer the status quo? The problem with the tea party caucus is that many of them want to cut off the patient's head to get rid of the brain tumor. If they want to destroy the US in order to rebuild it then that's one thing. Think of it this way, if a Tea Partier were in charge of Bush's second term and Obama's first then our country would be in financial ruin. Maybe we'd grow out of it stronger (or maybe not) but we'd be in significantly worse shape at this moment in history.

Oh yea, I don't think that Bush would have championed the notion of removing the subsidies to the petroleum industry. Forgot that one.