The most specific thing I’ve heard from Romney is that he will make a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. For every dollar that he cuts in spending he’ll raise taxes ten dollars.
Actually he said that he’d do the opposite of what Obama has done and Obama proposed ten dollars in cuts for every dollar in tax increase.
Or “Hi Opal!”
I knew we were down the rabbit hole last year during the debt increase debate when the GOP idea of compromise was to set off spending increases with tax cuts :eek:
No, they’ve been quite clear that everyone except the rich will have to make sacrifices.
This is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the Democrats. Only in Big Brother Land does allowing people to keep more of THEIR OWN MONEY count as government “spending.”
If you people could just once pull off your paternalistic blinders, and actually look at the world around you, instead of thinking that you know better than the “little people” about what’s good for them, this nation would have a much easier time and we could get back to governing according to the Constitution.
The “little people” need a functioning government. It can’t do that without money.
Guess what? The rich people need a functioning government too. “Their own money” is what they’ve earned via the infrastructure and permissiveness of the government as well as the hard work of those under them. In another society they might not have even had the chance to become fabulously wealthy in the first place. They. Owe.
So, your argument is that it’s okay to tax the middle class in order to give the revenue generated from doing so to the wealthy because it is THEIR OWN MONEY?
Do you see the inherent contradiction in your argument, or have you forgotten to remove your “paternalistic blinders” (where paternalism is fealty to the wealthy)?
Gee, it was ever so kind of them to allow me some of THEIR OWN MONEY for a moment - even that part of THEIR OWN MONEY that they got from raiding the Social Security trust fund, which had the illusion of in part being some of MY OWN MONEY.
Seriously, what is THEIR OWN MONEY? What does that mean? Do you have any sense as to what you are talking about?
I’m mostly a single issue voter and that issue is taxes. I would, however, support a candidate who simplified the tax code in a meaningful way. That is, the myriad of deductions were eliminated and I could be fairly confident of my actual tax liability without having to hire an accountant to do it for me.
On capital gains I think it’s important to remember that on investment income it is often post-tax dollars that have been invested. As such, given the hold period a lower tax rate us warranted.
That being said, Were I Romney I would campaign on raising the capital gains rate and lowering or maintaining the current ordinary income rates.
2010 spendin went down $60 Billion and the next year went up $150 Billon for a net increase over two years of $90 Billion.
All other years after 1900 that spending went down in nominal dollars: 1902, 1905, 1911-12, 1916, 1920-24, 1927, 1933, 1935, 1937-38,1946-48, 1954-55, 1965, 2010. Notice the huge gaps after 1955?
Spending 1901 = $525 Million
Spending in 2011 = $3.6 Trillion
Spending increase is equivalent to 8.36% inflation every year
Actual average inflation since 1901 is 3.04% every year
Spending as a % of GDP: 1901 less than 5%; 2011 over 40%
By whatever metric you want, US Government spending has increase significantly.
Is it even relevant to compare the federal government of 2011 to that of 1901? We rely on the government now for things that weren’t even a twinkle in anyone’s eye in 1901. The government spent very little on aviation infrastructure (the air traffic control system, accident investigations, and such) before the actual invention of the airplane, for example. Or would you wish to see the level of service return to 1901 levels?
Also, why do you cite the decreases in nominal dollars and only mention the % of GDP in aggregate at the end? If you have such numbers close at hand, how about telling us whether spending as a % of GDP has shown any year-by-year decreases since 1955?
Really? Tell that to every republican who prattled on about the TRILLION DOLLAR stimulus, which wasn’t a trillion dollars even when you include the tax cuts.
Correction: 2011 Spending is 24% of GDP
I would say that comparing 1901 to 2011 is entirely relevant exactly for the reason you mention because our govenment is so bloated because of all of the extra things we depend on the government for. You’re right that some spending increases are a natual result of history such as aviation and the interstates system, but those are a drop in the bucket compared to the oversized military and social welfare. Perhaps if we want a historical starting point, I should have started in 1913 with the first income tax.
The reason I quoted nominal dollars is because that’s how Congress thinks. Congress apportions $XXX million dollars for a program not X.X% of GDP. If Congress wanted to cut spending, it would say, we spent $1.3T this year, let’s only spend $1.2T next year. Congress won’t (and I argue can’t) look at spending as percents of GDP or in relation to the inflation rate. Of course a nominal spending increase may be an real dollar decrease which leads me to …
There is a natural growth in spending just from the growth of the economy. The two obvious “natural” growth rates would be inflation or GDP. My numbers show that historically, Federal spending has by far outpaced inflation and GDP growth. So while there is the occassional real spending decrease, it is NOT through the concious effort of Congress and have little impact on the overall spending trend of Congress. An interesting trend is from 1986 to 2000, spendin as a percentage of GDP fell every year except 1990-91.
I also think that the government spends money on things it shouldn’t, but I’m not sure we agree on what things those are. Until there is a broad public consensus on what things the government should butt out of, its responsibilities are likely to stay about what they are now and it’s only responsible for the spending to reflect that.
Would you wish the government to be more like it was in 1913 if it meant returning to a 1913 standard of living or for the U.S. to return to the relative status it did in 1913? During the period you’re talking about, we became a global superpower. While that represents a military burden, there are also economic advantages. Would we have such a flourishing aerospace industry if the government hadn’t paid to send men to the moon? I couldn’t begin to list the way our lives have changed since 1913, or say whether the changing role of government has been worth the extra money it spends. But I do think that the massive number of variables involved makes it meaningless to compare spending levels between now and 99 years ago.
I don’t know how Congress thinks, and unless you’re one of 535 people in this country, I doubt you do either. I’d prefer they didn’t think in strict dollar terms, but adopt a long-term attitude of responsible discipline and compromise.
I think the period from 1986-2000 is a much more relevant comparison for our current situation than 1913-present. What did we do right during those years? I don’t think we need to massively slash and remake the government RIGHT NOW, just hold the line on spending so that it grows slower than GDP and keep that up for a couple of decades. I’d like to see us at least start a trend in the right direction, and have a wider awareness of how beneficial such a trend can be.
Yeah, but could he name the parts?
<duplicate>
How does Romney’s plan raise taxes on the 45% or so of Americans who don’t pay federal income tax?
Regards,
Shodan
According the Tax Policy Center’s report, they take Romney’s stated goals:
and show what adjustments would be necessary to meet these goals. These adjustments include raising the rates on most Americans, including the poor who pay little or no federal income tax.
By “broaden(ing) the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral”. This is the Romney/Ryan plan and what most other conservatives (yourself included, if I recall correctly) say is the correct approach.
Broadening the base means that some of that 45% that don’t pay federal income tax now will. Do you disagree?
I think the major difference between government spending in 1913 and 2012 is not so much what we spend it on but rather the role of the government in the economy. (Simplisticly) For liberals, government needs to provide for social welfare and for conservatives government needs to develop (or stay out of the way of) business growth. Modern Keynsian (in a misreading of JMK’s theories) feel that government should be the main driving force of the economy - so does that skew the spending as a percent of GDP percentage? And even the most diehard Keynsians on this board agree that deficit spending is unsustainable but are hard-pressed to say how the government can reduce the level of spending we are in.
And then the really right wing fiscal conservatives that say we are going to collapse the economy. So buy gold and unhybrid seeds because you’re not talking 1913 standard of living but 1813 standard of living. It’s easy to laugh at those people but look how devistated our economy is because of the housing bubble popping and not are the reactionaries really THAT unreasonable?
So the real question is how has the role of government as a factor in the economy changed since 1913 and is it appropriate now in 2012 and will it be appropriate in 2050?
So, who is ready to eat some crow now that the study linked in the OP has been thoroughly debunked?