This cutting taxes to raise revenue thing – how’s that workin’ out for ya?
And if you’re already $50,000 in debt, cutting back on your spending isn’t going to solve your problems. You’re never going to pay off that debt on your current $100 salary even if you devote all of it to your debt. You need to raise your income.
I am SO on board with this one!
Just to be clear here, are you comparing the current state of spending in Washington with a family that has “cut every single corner [they] possibly can?” Spending is going UP - no corners are being cut at all. Your analogy doesn’t work.
The underlying premise to your comment is that you will stop spending, then have to pay off debt with all of your income. That will not be the case with the federal government. Despite monstrous debt, they continue to add more. The tax increases that are being proposed are not to cut debt, they are to enable more spending. Congress and the President don’t want to raise taxes to erase debt and get their house in order, they want more tax revenue so they can keep spending at the current pace. There’s a big difference there.
Not to get off on a tangent, but where does it stop? Keep spending, keep accruing debt, keep taxing the people to pay for it - eventually (theoretically), as in your scenario, 100% of your income and mine will go to the government, which can neither pay off the debt nor raise “income” any further. I have to live within my means, why can’t my country?
I said nothing about cutting taxes to raise revenue. I’m no economist and can’t speak for or against that (though I’ve heard some compelling arguments that cutting taxes does raise revenue). I’m arguing that the notion that if you’re spending more money than you have, then the only option is to get more money comes straight from a kindergarten mentality. When I was five I wanted a new G.I. Joe. My mom told she didn’t have the money and I retorted, “Just write a check!” That economic plan didn’t work for my family then and it doesn’t work for the government now.
Actually, no. My point is that “just cut spending” is a facile argument that only considers one side of the equation, and if wielded negligently, as you’re doing now, it can result in real harm to the country.
Oh, also, I love stupid bullshit like this:
It’s right up there with “Should the government just give free Porsches to everyone?” You automatically equate spending with frivolities and luxuries and don’t seem to comprehend that there are such things as necessities.
Should you write a check for a GI Joe if you don’t have the cash for it? No. Should you put the medical costs for a heart attack on a credit card if you don’t have the cash for it? Fuck yes you should.
I like the GI Joe analogy though. You put your finger on the most extravagant, wasteful part of government spending. I’m all for cutting back on our GI Joe budget.
I comprehend that there are such things as necessities, but I also comprehend that the federal (and local) government spends billions of dollars that aren’t necessary. I recently saw a story on the local news about Detroit police cars not having enough equipment - to the point that during a traffic stop the officer had to call in the plates on his personal cell phone. The car they pulled over had tinted windows, custom rims, a huge stereo system, and other extras - the driver complained that he couldn’t afford a ticket because he was on food stamps.
I bring this up for two reasons. One, I think that it provides a useful analogy to government spending - the guy had no money for food but plenty for a tricked-out car. Government, in general, tends to throw money around recklessly, then complain that they don’t have enough revenue to keep the country going. There is a serious prioritization problem.
The second reason I bring up the food stamps driver is that he obviously doesn’t need food stamps. But the system is such that taxpayer money is wasted on those who don’t need and those who are defrauding the government - not only to the detriment of the average taxpayer, but also to those who really do need help.
I’m starting to ramble, but the real issue here isn’t whether or not there are necessities, it’s what those necessities really are. The problem is not that I can’t comprehend that there are necessities in government spending, it’s that you don’t seem to comprehend that billions of dollars are wasted on non-necessities.
The financial crisis is a Bush creation. A huge tax cut, almost all to the wealthy and then running 2 wars off the books resulted in this financial disaster. That is what caused it and that is how you fix it.
You need to raise revenue. It is impossible to cut your way out of this Bushian /right wing mess.
I was told the following in an earlier post:
Speaking of only considering one side of the equation…
I’m not sure how yelling, “It’s all Bush’s fault” and hiking taxes is going to magically make debt disappear and bring Congress in line with their spending. A tax cut doesn’t cause a deficit unless spending isn’t cut too.
Ahh, the old Cadillac welfare cliche. 1980 called and it wants its anecdotes back.
If we eliminated every expense except SS, Medicare and Medicaid, interest, and the military, we’d be at about break even.
So after you eliminate the money that goes to frivolous welfare queens or bridges to nowhere, in addition to all national parks, safety regulations, highway construction, and the running of the federal government, which of the above programs are you going to cut? Good luck with that!
No shit, Sherlock. Look, follow the logic train if you can:
Should we raise taxes?
Well, we don’t want to do that if we can avoid it.
We can avoid it by cutting spending.
Is there any spending we can cut that won’t cripple us?
No?
Then all that we can do is raise taxes.
Can you understand how both can be considered yet one may be the only realistic option?
I’m not necessarily saying that it is right now. I don’t know every single program being run. I do know that, as Ludovic says, most programs the government runs are chump change, and many of those are necessary anyway. The amount of money unnecessary programs consume is not exactly substantial. Scream about cutting out the fat all you want, but when the budget is 99% lean already, you’re not going to see a lot of progress made.
Deficits don’t matter, remember?
I’m suprised nobody noticed this gem:
So now SS is a benefit that only helps the rich? Not even Stan Shmenge thinks so, apparantly, unless he thinks Bill Gates does need SS payments:
Also, I hate how people compare the budgeting of the world’s largest economy to household spending. I know most people have not studied macroeconomics at an appreciable depth, but it’s downright ignorant to suggest that balancing a budget is as simple as cutting spending to below outlays. Believe it or not, there is a positive correlation between government spending and tax revenue.
People who get social security spend that money on, let’s say, groceries. The grocery store has to pay taxes on their increased revenue, and has to hire additional workers to handle the additional volume. These people pay taxes on their salary/wages. The farmers/factories that produce the goods receive more revenue from the grocery store, pay additional taxes, hire additional workers, pay taxes on salary/wages. The tractor/machinery manufacturer etc…
So, in the $150 spending $100 revenue example, cutting spending by $50 would reduce spending to $100, but could reduce revenue to $75. You’re still running in the red by $25, but now the economy is in crappier shape and there is less general prosperity. Not only that, you’ve slowed economic growth, hurting yourself in the long term. The only real debate here is by how much.
This all depends on what you cut, of course, but entitlement programs have some of the strongest correlations between spending and revenue. Someone who gets food stamps likely will spend that money on food in short order, like in the example up above.
This is basic Keynesian Economics.
I’m not sure how accurate your figures are, but there is still an obvious philosophical issue here. The notion seems to be that all of these things are immutable and untouchable. Social Security, for instance, was supposed to be a system where folks paid in and then got the money back when they reached retirement age. Years of politicians “borrowing” from SS, as well as population and life expectancy changes, has made it into what’s basically a federally sanctioned ponzi scheme. You act like these programs can’t possibly be cut without ruining the nation.
Taxes will go up and down as the political climate dictates. The underlying concept that we can’t cut anything without utter failure is where my problem lies. The government’s obligation is to provide basic services and protection, not to bail you out on a bad investment, put food on your table, save money for when you get older, cure world hunger and disease… and the list goes on. Name-call all you want, but the current system is unsustainable.
The problem with SS is not necessarily that losing it will cripple the nation (I’m ambivalent about it myself), but that there’s absolutely no political will to address it. It is an untouchable part of the budget because no one will touch it.
What Bosstone said. My emphasis is more on the “good luck with that!” part than on claiming that all of SS is by nature necessary and immutable.
Believe it or not, I would not mind SS expenditures be reduced, especially on those receiving a pretty substantial check every month. I know that the check I’m scheduled to get will more than suffice for my expenses when you take into account my savings, and I’m not even in the top bracket of earners.
But there is even less will in this country for SS cuts than there is for tax increases. So since a balanced budget is my priority, I’ll take tax increases over “splitting the difference” and raising spending while simultaneously cutting taxes (and skyrocketing the debt), which every president and congress, no matter what party, has done since 2000.
So, to follow your logic, if “The Rich” pay less in taxes they will have more money to invest with, meaning that companies will have more money with which to hire employees. These employees will be taxed on their income and on their expenditures, which will increase tax revenue. Thanks.
I used the household budget as an analogy. Since you feel that this is ignorant, perhaps you can explain how it is not ok for an individual to spend beyond his/her means, but it is acceptable for a government to do so.
Again I’ll mention the obvious philosophical hurdles here. I work to get money to support myself. You apparently work to get money for the government (which can then dole it out as it sees fit).
Ok, I’m not saying that I know exactly how to change this overnight, but politicians need to be held to account. Most people just shrug their shoulders as though nothing can be done about ever-higher taxes, increased national debt, or political will involving SS or entitlement programs. This is not some oligarchy where a few untouchables make all the decisions. Politicians are elected by the people - and these people should inform themselves as to what is going on. The lack of “political will” to reform entitlement programs is, in many cases, really not a lack of will at all. It’s politicians looking to literally buy votes. Take away the handouts and those receiving them will vote for someone else.
Again, taxes will rise and fall, but my contention is with the idea that absolutely nothing can be done to solve any problem but to increase taxation. It’s ludicrous.
Looks like the welfare queen is making a comeback! That guy sure is a lucky ducky with the tricked out car.