Troubadour
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 464
- Reaction score
- 181
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
With a revenue deficit of $1.26 trillion for FY 2011 and projected deficits of about $700 billion per year thereafter*, Republicans are still up to their usual game - pushing budget and tax cuts, insisting that meeting economic necessities constitutes "waste," and that any government that provides more services than Dark Age Saxony is "socialism."
*Source: US Federal Budget Deficit - How the National Budget Deficit Impacts the US Economy
Under the economy formulated by nearly a decade of their own policies - an incessant program of continuous tax cuts for business and wealthy income brackets, coupled with the radical evisceration of regulation and social programs - the revenue deficit skyrocketed to record levels, which they are now using to claim that we need more of their Dark Age medicine - more bleeding of the patient.
The Republican Party long ago abandoned any pretense of representing any other economic interest but the absolute highest incomes and wealthiest businesses, but every once in a while my jadedness dissolves and my disgust with their total moral bankruptcy and lies is renewed. Listening to what comes out of the GOP is like something out of Soviet Russia - pompous, arrogant, ideology-driven pronouncements that don't even acknowledge the existence of a differing viewpoint, let alone attempt to argue with it in any substantive way. And it isn't even limited to Republicans in the Beltway - more often than not, my interactions with Republicans in general could be accurately summarized like this:
Q: What do you recommend for the economy?
GOP: Tax and budget cuts. Less regulation.
Q: How can we create more jobs?
GOP: Tax and budget cuts. Less regulation.
Q: What is your favorite color?
GOP: Tax and budget cuts. Less regulation.
Q: In what year did the Battle of Hastings take place?
GOP: Tax and budget cuts. Less regulation.
Q: What are the names of your children?
GOP: Tax and budget cuts. Less regulation.
In all the years of participating in online discussions with a variety of people, I've never, ever run into a single Republican who could credibly and rationally explain their economic positions. They would recite badly mangled half-truths and frequently-discredited articles of faith, like "Tax cuts bring more revenue," and then react in a kind of bitterly offended religious panic when confronted with arguments to the contrary. They would say things like (I'm not even kidding) "It's better to have lower taxes, because lower taxes means there's more money in the economy" - like "the economy" only consists of the private sector, and public spending somehow occurs in a separate universe that carries no benefit.
But it isn't even really a matter of stupidity or ignorance, because sometimes I've run into Republicans who clearly understood the counter-arguments that showed them how an economy really works and what factors go into its prosperity. And yet never, at any time - not once - has a Republican admitted to me that tax rates for the wealthy could be too low; that capital gains tax rates could be too low; that any tax cut proposal being discussed in Congress went too far, or was a bad decision for the current economic climate; or that budget cuts for any priority other than the military, intelligence, law enforcement, or anti-terrorism are a bad idea or go too far. Never.
And the reason, frankly, is that down to its root, I find that they don't actually believe anything they say - it's all just glib excuses for doing what they already want to do without acknowledging moral bankruptcy. They don't think tax rates are too high, they just don't want to pay them. At all. And they'll say whatever they think sounds like a plausible excuse to reduce them. Always. Sometimes they won't even bother trying to justify it - they'll just shriek that you're a "socialist" (because somehow that's an inherently bad thing in their universe) or, if they're really extreme, threaten violence against their opponents if they don't get their way (because unlike welfare, murderous fascism is OK).
They don't really think budgets are too big, they just don't want anyone else to benefit from government - especially people they consider inferior to themselves. They want all the benefits of American citizenship with none of the responsibilities, and they want YOU to pay them for the privilege of making them rich. They want to be your lords and masters, your kings and queens, and they want to rule your life with confident laziness like the antebellum Southern plantation owners they still emulate to this day. And if you deny them this power, or even fail to clap loudly enough for them, they will make it their political mission in life to hurt you.
Now, what are we going to do about this gigantic revenue deficit? Obviously, no sane person is going to recommend responding to a revenue shortage in a time of slow growth by gutting the federal budget - you might as well treat anemia with leeches, or relieve a headache with a gunshot. So, naturally we should raise taxes on people who can afford tax increases. This is not rocket science. I won't venture exact recommendations, because I don't pretend to know what would be the precise optimum point, but it seems reasonable to suggest a return to the top marginal rates under the Kennedy administration - which, if I recall correctly, was in the neighborhood of 70%.
If that turns out to be too low, we could always increase it further (or if too high, reduce it). But the evidence is pretty undeniable that the lot of the average American was much better in 1963 than it was at any point from 1980 onward. The bought-and-paid-for GOP House isn't going to pass such a resolution - their masters would never allow it - and the Senate wouldn't either, because there would be no point without a filibuster-proof majority in favor, but at very least it can be acknowledged that this is OBVIOUSLY the right thing to do both practically and morally. In fact, it's the only remotely sane thing to do.
Just to head off the inevitable diversion into farce, I'm sure there are studies by the Cato Institute floating around that show how 2 + 2 = 5, up is down, and zero taxation provides infinite revenue, but let's not get sidetracked into debating the comedic stylings of coin-operated corporate tools with economics degrees from the George W. Bush School of Ecomonicalism.
The wealthy are not doing their share for this country. Business is not doing its share for this country. In fact, they are doing far less than the people who support them, even while crying the loudest from the velvet cushions of their yachts that government won't give them more ponies. It's about time they stopped treating America like their personal toy and started giving back to this country for once in their lives. They need to get off their Ronald Reagan silk underpants and pay their dues for the first time in generations, earn the right to call themselves Americans. If they just stopped robbing this country, there won't be any deficit.
*Source: US Federal Budget Deficit - How the National Budget Deficit Impacts the US Economy
Under the economy formulated by nearly a decade of their own policies - an incessant program of continuous tax cuts for business and wealthy income brackets, coupled with the radical evisceration of regulation and social programs - the revenue deficit skyrocketed to record levels, which they are now using to claim that we need more of their Dark Age medicine - more bleeding of the patient.
The Republican Party long ago abandoned any pretense of representing any other economic interest but the absolute highest incomes and wealthiest businesses, but every once in a while my jadedness dissolves and my disgust with their total moral bankruptcy and lies is renewed. Listening to what comes out of the GOP is like something out of Soviet Russia - pompous, arrogant, ideology-driven pronouncements that don't even acknowledge the existence of a differing viewpoint, let alone attempt to argue with it in any substantive way. And it isn't even limited to Republicans in the Beltway - more often than not, my interactions with Republicans in general could be accurately summarized like this:
Q: What do you recommend for the economy?
GOP: Tax and budget cuts. Less regulation.
Q: How can we create more jobs?
GOP: Tax and budget cuts. Less regulation.
Q: What is your favorite color?
GOP: Tax and budget cuts. Less regulation.
Q: In what year did the Battle of Hastings take place?
GOP: Tax and budget cuts. Less regulation.
Q: What are the names of your children?
GOP: Tax and budget cuts. Less regulation.
In all the years of participating in online discussions with a variety of people, I've never, ever run into a single Republican who could credibly and rationally explain their economic positions. They would recite badly mangled half-truths and frequently-discredited articles of faith, like "Tax cuts bring more revenue," and then react in a kind of bitterly offended religious panic when confronted with arguments to the contrary. They would say things like (I'm not even kidding) "It's better to have lower taxes, because lower taxes means there's more money in the economy" - like "the economy" only consists of the private sector, and public spending somehow occurs in a separate universe that carries no benefit.
But it isn't even really a matter of stupidity or ignorance, because sometimes I've run into Republicans who clearly understood the counter-arguments that showed them how an economy really works and what factors go into its prosperity. And yet never, at any time - not once - has a Republican admitted to me that tax rates for the wealthy could be too low; that capital gains tax rates could be too low; that any tax cut proposal being discussed in Congress went too far, or was a bad decision for the current economic climate; or that budget cuts for any priority other than the military, intelligence, law enforcement, or anti-terrorism are a bad idea or go too far. Never.
And the reason, frankly, is that down to its root, I find that they don't actually believe anything they say - it's all just glib excuses for doing what they already want to do without acknowledging moral bankruptcy. They don't think tax rates are too high, they just don't want to pay them. At all. And they'll say whatever they think sounds like a plausible excuse to reduce them. Always. Sometimes they won't even bother trying to justify it - they'll just shriek that you're a "socialist" (because somehow that's an inherently bad thing in their universe) or, if they're really extreme, threaten violence against their opponents if they don't get their way (because unlike welfare, murderous fascism is OK).
They don't really think budgets are too big, they just don't want anyone else to benefit from government - especially people they consider inferior to themselves. They want all the benefits of American citizenship with none of the responsibilities, and they want YOU to pay them for the privilege of making them rich. They want to be your lords and masters, your kings and queens, and they want to rule your life with confident laziness like the antebellum Southern plantation owners they still emulate to this day. And if you deny them this power, or even fail to clap loudly enough for them, they will make it their political mission in life to hurt you.
Now, what are we going to do about this gigantic revenue deficit? Obviously, no sane person is going to recommend responding to a revenue shortage in a time of slow growth by gutting the federal budget - you might as well treat anemia with leeches, or relieve a headache with a gunshot. So, naturally we should raise taxes on people who can afford tax increases. This is not rocket science. I won't venture exact recommendations, because I don't pretend to know what would be the precise optimum point, but it seems reasonable to suggest a return to the top marginal rates under the Kennedy administration - which, if I recall correctly, was in the neighborhood of 70%.
If that turns out to be too low, we could always increase it further (or if too high, reduce it). But the evidence is pretty undeniable that the lot of the average American was much better in 1963 than it was at any point from 1980 onward. The bought-and-paid-for GOP House isn't going to pass such a resolution - their masters would never allow it - and the Senate wouldn't either, because there would be no point without a filibuster-proof majority in favor, but at very least it can be acknowledged that this is OBVIOUSLY the right thing to do both practically and morally. In fact, it's the only remotely sane thing to do.
Just to head off the inevitable diversion into farce, I'm sure there are studies by the Cato Institute floating around that show how 2 + 2 = 5, up is down, and zero taxation provides infinite revenue, but let's not get sidetracked into debating the comedic stylings of coin-operated corporate tools with economics degrees from the George W. Bush School of Ecomonicalism.
The wealthy are not doing their share for this country. Business is not doing its share for this country. In fact, they are doing far less than the people who support them, even while crying the loudest from the velvet cushions of their yachts that government won't give them more ponies. It's about time they stopped treating America like their personal toy and started giving back to this country for once in their lives. They need to get off their Ronald Reagan silk underpants and pay their dues for the first time in generations, earn the right to call themselves Americans. If they just stopped robbing this country, there won't be any deficit.
Last edited: