Care to cite to the Democrats that want to increase spending while increasing taxes?
Republicans aren’t playing chicken with the Democrats, they are playing chicken with a cliff.
Which raises the question: Why the hell is Obama negotiating with these terrorists?
It certainly seems like this is headed towards a deal massively weighted in the Republicans favor, just because they’re the only ones who apparently don’t give a damn if they sink the economy to get what they want. And as you rightly mention, they can play this card again and again.
So what gives? Do the Democrats have some kind of actual strategy here?
They know Obama can not let the economy sink farther. The Repubs think if they let it go to hell, Obama will get the blame. There are a few idiots on this board who can not understand who created the financial mess. The Repubs figure if they hold back a recovery, they can steal the presidency. There are a lot of voters who will just throw the Dems out and reinstate the thieves who stole our country blind. It would be stupid, but it is possible.
Or *a fortiori * when it started. (I’ll give them a hint: not last year)
I think they’re planning on caving, and hoping they get credit for being bipartisan. Just because that’s never worked out for them before doesn’t mean it won’t this time.
Nothing. Except that given our current financial position, cutting spending and not raising taxes is really the only way to go. It’s the irresponsible spending policies that got us where we are, and the vast majority of those are liberal social engineering programs.
So saying that Republicans are playing chicken is somewhat…disingenuous, shall we say?
NO. Cutting spending and not raising taxes is exactly the wrong way to go. Not disingenuous at all.
You can not fix the deficit by just cutting. We have been doing that over and over. Revenue is required. Lots of revenue. The deficit is equal to the tax cuts plus the unfunded wars.
Those are the policies that put us in the hole. They have to be reversed just to start off. Then tax loopholes for individuals and businesses have to be ended. We need to close the offshore banking loopholes. We have a lot to catch up with since Bush believed in the stupid trickle down. It actually trickles up. Making the rich vastly richer and creating the huge wealth gap that is harming America so badly now.
What is disingenuous is the idea that balancing the budget has anything to do with the debt ceiling. They are separate issues. The debt ceiling needs to be raised to prevent a default by the US. Without any new action, the default will happen completely because of the net effect of the revenue and spending bills passed in the past. It is just beyond my understanding how any member of congress could have voted for the FY2011 budget bills and now not be willing to vote to increase the debt ceiling to cover what they voted for a few months ago.
The idea that cutting spending and not raising taxes is really the only way to go is an opinion. Anyone could easily find reputable economist that support it as well as those who say that there is no way to cut spending enough and revenue has to be increased. That last part generally has some idea that things like disbanding the military, etc. aren’t viable options.
Actually, it’s just that they’re demanding more. It really doesn’t matter what it is, they just want more.
Which, really, is the definition of being a Republican nowadays.
-Joe
And when is it, in fact, permissible to raise taxes?
-Joe
When a Republican says it is, silly.
While I agree with you, and agree that’s their plan, it can’t possibly work (in my mind, but that doesn’t mean squat when it comes to millions of other people, as they don’t necessarily agree with me). It seems to me that while the repubs logic in causing the economy to tank, and therefore winning the WH in 2012 is “Look! It happened on Obama’s watch! It’s his fault! Burn him! He’s a witch!”
In my opinion, it’s the republican’s fault, because at some point, we have to raise taxes. It’s simply inevitable to have more money coming in. Sure, cut spending, but let the bush tax cuts expire, end oil company subsidies, cut defense spending (by bringing troops home from Afghanistan), and raise tax rates reasonably.
Again, IMO, boehner, cantor, et al have not acted in any sort of reasonable manner.
We have? When I cut my own personal budget I must have something vastly different going on that when our government claims to cut a budget.
Of course we can - don’t be ridiculous.
Let’s see a cite where we have cut spending overall.
No it isn’t.
Regards,
Shodan
You can balance the budget by cutting spending. The question is what do we want the government to do. Every program is important to someone.
If we cut all discretionary spending we would eliminate the deficit. We wouldn’t have a defense department, transportation department, justice department, state department, etc.
A balance approach is needed and that means raising revenue and cutting spending. Raising revenue is some combination of tax rates, tax breaks and overall economic growth.
Republicans have President Obama where they want him. In November 2012 Obama and the Democrat Party will be evaluated by the unemployment rate and the deficit. Republicans are threatening to shut down the government unless Obama agrees to policies that are likely to increase both.
But it’s not. Not even then.
So, when is it OK? When the rate is 10% and needs to go to 12% to pay for a war? To stop an asteroid from hitting the Earth?
If it’s down to 1% is it functionally equivalent to child murder if someone DOUBLES THE TAX RATE?
To keep the world economy (note to Teabaggers, the USA is in fact part of the world, like it or not) from a meltdown?
-Joe
increasing the tax revenue by 15% of gdp would require doubling everyone’s tax burden, rich and poor alike.
We are presently taxed about 10% of GDP below the rest of the OECD nations (we are at about 24% (for state, local and federal combined)) while the OECD nations average about 35%.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205
The recession itself accounts for about a 4% reduction in tax revenue (the Bush tax cuts by comparison reduced our tax revenue by 2% of GDP).
Tack on increased expenditures for stimulus, the wars in the middle east and extra social safety net payments (food stamps etc.). We achieve a balanced budget if we can pull out of the recession in the next few years, reverse the Bush tax cuts and stop spending $100 billion a year to bomb a country with a GDP of $15 billion/year.
We can solve social security by removing the cap. PERIOD. Heck we can reduce the employer side contribution if we entirely removed the cap and if we included stuff like carried interest income, deferred compensation, stock options and others income that is clearly compensation but manages to somehow escape the definition of wages, we could probably maintain the lower FICA rate we enjoy right now.
Of course we still have the long term problems associated with health care costs but once we fix that, we are pretty much set.
Are you under the impression that there are no unintended consequences in the tax code?