Absolutely. The point I was making is that it will be insignificant in the scheme of things. Does that mean it isn't a good start, not at all, but it just isn't significant. Besides, the original argument was how the Bush tax cuts are the main driver of the deficit going forward. I simply pointed out, very factually, that neither side is willing to get rid of the vast majority of those tax cuts so blaming it on anyone but our current crop of politicians going forward is disingenuous at best.
Keep on missing the point...
The Bush tax cuts are putting money where it is apparently doing nothing but increasing the wealth of people who are just looking for a safe place to put their extra money (in the case of the upper incomes).
Instead of doing the above the money affected by the Bush tax cuts should be put somewhere else. Since you assert that the amount of the Bush tax cuts are relatively small compared to the perhaps instead of just applying it to deficit spending cuts it should be targeted at programs that would increase the amount of jobs available for workers and lessen the ongoing costs to this economy in the long run (more on that below).
Does math hurt your head or something?
Does understanding how instead of using money for tax cuts for people who don't need them and using it for needed investments in this country hurt your head or something?
There are better places the money that is involved in the Bush Tax cuts can be used.
That's the point you seem to be ignoring.
You might want to make sure someone actually argued that before throwing the "idiotic" term around lest you end up looking like one yourself....
You might want to actually follow your advice and understand the points before you throw the following out...
Sure thing. Now what about the other 96ish% of the deficit?
You guys keep assuming that I am arguing to keep the tax cuts for the rich in place. When my original point was simply to point out that the chart that was posted attributing most of the deficit going forward to the Bush tax cuts was mostly due to tax cuts for the non-rich which neither side wants to get rid of.
You're ignoring the fact that President Obama has offered a budget that in addition to repealing the Bush tax cuts offered spending cuts.
I guess it was foolish to think that you would know this and I didn't need to explicitly mention it to you.
Unfortunately repairing damage is not as easy as causing it in the first place and it will take longer to get out of the deficit hole than it took to get into it.
Additionally you apparently looked over this part of my previous post.
As I recall starting with only incomes above only $250k is only looking at the people who are in the top 4 or 5% so it really brings up another question of how valid this target income is in terms of the level at which we should repeal the Bush Tax cuts.
We should definitely end them for the people earning $250k. As the economy is recovering (albeit very slowly) we should eventually (after the recovery is strong enough) look at incomes between $100k and $250k for a partial or full repeal of the Bush tax rates next.
I have stated that looking at the repealing the Bush tax rates for people who make less than $250k is something that should be visited.
As far as the rest of your post, they are very noble and good goals but imo we can not continue to run trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. Eventually something will have to give. When and what that is we can only speculate on but it will eventually have to end.
These goals are not just "noble" or idealistic they are practical which is a point that deficit hawks like to ignore.
Instead of giving money to private individuals and entities that are not buying or building things and putting the money back into the economy it should be used to make needed investments into this country.
Just looking at the percentage of the deficit that the upper rate tax cuts are ignores that the money can be put to better use than being wasted on people who are doing well enough that they don't need it.
In the case of infrastructure. Ignoring needed maintenance (and upgrades) not only ignores hiring in an underutilized section of the workforce. It also is adding to the costs that this economy has to bear..
According to this
report
the Texas Transportation Institute, a research arm of Texas A&M University, released its 2007 Urban Mobility Report on September 18, detailing how congestion on U.S. roads is getting worse. Its a problem that forces Americans to spend 4.2 billion extra hours each year in their carsapproximately 38 extra hours for each urban driverand wastes 2.9 billion gal (11 billion L) of fuel, at a total cost to the national economy of $78 billion.
While spending is something that needs to be curtailed some investing is necessary now or it will cost us more than $36 billion a year in the long run. Just looking at the deficit and what percentage of the Bush Tax cuts are of that amount ignores this.
In the case of education the benefits aren't as immediate spending on needed infrastructure maintenance and improvements but it's obvious that having a population more likely to be productive rather than incarcerated is better for this country in the long run.
Remember President Obama did propose a budget that contained spending cuts as well the ending of the Bush tax rates.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/13/us-usa-budget-obama-idUSTRE71B1QU20110213
It also contained continuing investments in education.
President Obama also addressed the infrastructure issue in a proposed jobs bill las year
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jobs_Act
which proposed investing $50 billion for infrastructure.
While it may seem insignificant as a sum or as a percentage of the deficit the Bush tax rates as they are harm this economy more than help it.
There are better places to put it which, in time, would have a greater positive impact on this economy than the initial amount.
It would be much better to invest the money affected by the Bush Tax rates in programs that would reduce future costs to the economy rather than to just give it to people who don't need it.
As far as spending cuts go. You can only cut so much so soon.
For example (as much as I would like to) we can't arbitrarily cut spending in some cases like the Afghanistan war.
And as highlighted in the Civil Engineer's report linked to above, ignoring some investing in the name of cutting spending is going to cost more and more in the long run.
However, spending cuts were proposed, but couldn't gain traction because a certain segment of Congress has a fanatical view about lower tax rates.
Facebook
Twitter