Why Republicans refuse to trade immediate tax hikes for long term spending cuts

[boochi]

Hint: the money is already spent. The congressional Republicans already passed the budget. Now they are lying to you. Failure to raise the debt limit doesn't affect spending one bit as the funds have already been appropriated and the government would be able to legally continue to operate and spend the funds appropriated. A default would merely screw our creditors (and destroy the global economy) but at least the Republicans would get in a sound bite or two.

That budget ends in three months and is the product of Democrats failing to pass a budget when they had complete control over congress. Congress controls the purse, not the president. Who controlled that purse when deficits mushroomed?

 

[Matt1970]

Sigh. At the end of FY 1981, total federal debt was <$1T. At the end of FY 1989, it was >$2.8T. It was >$4.6T when his successor GHWB left office. Tax cuts and spending increases, particularly on the military, made it so. Mere facts.

Throughout the postwar period, pre-Reagan, very small deficits, less than inflation, actually made money for the govt. That kind of deficit simply inflates away to insignificance over time.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Effective federal tax rates over time-

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#Data

Receipts & outlays-

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but only opinions having basis in fact have credibility. Well, except among Righties, where emotional satisfaction seems to be the most significant criteria.

I am trying to see things your way but I just can't seem to jam my head up my own ass.

 

[nonlnear]

If your argument is that long-term spending cut agreements never pan out..

then immediate tax increases are the only solution to the deficit.

Because immediate cuts are obviously unpossible.

 

[Jhhnn]

I am trying to see things your way but I just can't seem to jam my head up my own ass.

Maybe that's because it's already there, and you'd be attempting a double loop.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

No tax hikes!

If the Democrats don't agree to immediate and deep cuts, then shut the government down! Bring the country to its knees......and its senses.

When will you GOP nut huggers understand that you already spent the money on two wars, got your unsupported tax cuts, and bailed out your bankster buddies? Now like the deadbeats you are you want to leave the tab for someone else to pay!

And your more than willing to "bring the country to it knees" and turn us all into deadbeats because you refuse to pay for failed GOP policies of the last decade.

 

[Jhhnn]

No tax hikes!

If the Democrats don't agree to immediate and deep cuts, then shut the government down! Bring the country to its knees......and its senses.

The last time Repubs brought the country to it's knees was 1929, and the electorate illustrated they'd come to their senses in 1932.

Probably not what you had in mind.

I thought maybe people had figured it out in 2008, but it wasn't bad enough- there's still room for denial, which you exemplify in abundance. Repub leaders & funders see this as an opportunity to end what they call the "Welfare State", something the rest of us call a social safety net, and they may well succeed, if only for awhile. They intend to re-create the employment opportunities & debt overhang of 1931, and all that goes with it. Debt overhang, particularly at the level of govt, is actually worse today, something they've carefully cultured for 30 years.

I think they've miscalculated, that the govt of the people won't be held hostage to the whims of the financial elite much longer, but we'll see. Even people who are dead broke, homeless, have the right to vote, and it's getting harder to justify greed at the top in the face of need at the bottom.

What people really need are jobs, incomes, something that's currently being withheld in the interest of profit & politics. If the private sector won't cut into their profits far enough to provide them, then it's only appropriate that the govt do so, and raising taxes on those doing the holding back is the only reasonable way to accomplish that.

 

[theeedude]

So hedge fund managers should be allowed to not pay income taxes on their income because of this?

 

[boochi]

When will you GOP nut huggers understand that you already spent the money on two wars, got your unsupported tax cuts, and bailed out your bankster buddies? Now like the deadbeats you are you want to leave the tab for someone else to pay!

And your more than willing to "bring the country to it knees" and turn us all into deadbeats because you refuse to pay for failed GOP policies of the last decade.

Democrats controlled both houses of congress. You might want to throw a little blame that way dipshit.

 

[soulcougher73]

I hope you realize that Bush didn't sign that $3 trillion budget because Democrats never voted on it and instead waited for Obama to take office to pass a budget.

Also, the actual budget for FY 2009 was $3.5 trillion.

So you bitch about Bush's $3 trillion budget, but are going to give a pass to Obama's $3.5 trillion budget?

You do realize the reasons Obama's budgets are so high is because of things Bush started and put into play right? He has to stay the course on certain things already decided on before he even took office. If he had a clean slate, no wars, no house collapse etc his budget would not be as high.

Basically take your head out of your ass and look at the big picture with your blinders off, hack.

 

[Jhhnn]

Democrats controlled both houses of congress. You might want to throw a little blame that way dipshit.

Only for the last 2 years of the Bush Admin, at which point the snakebite had already occurred...

Republicans were busy little beavers in the 2003-2007 time frame. They had ideology & plans that had been developed for decades. It was the top down class warfare Blitzkrieg opportunity they'd wanted for a very long time.

It didn't hurt that the biggest political windfall since Pearl Harbor, 9/11, landed right in their laps. After that, it was Neocons gone wild, epic fear mongering, blood lust & greed all entwined like the snakes on Medusa's head...

 

[trenchfoot]

The Bush years of unabashed greed, deregulation and blatant corruption of, for and by the corporate owned repubs never happened in the eyes of the repub faithful, and the resulting deep financial abyss these big business/corrupt repub politicians put us in also never happened in their deluded minds. How convenient it is to have selective memory loss to promote a proven failed ideology.

And the fact that Obama got put in office while his office was down there at the bottom of the abyss is also conveniently brushed aside and ignored as an inconvenient fact because it points directly at the repubs for being largely responsible for putting us there to begin with.

Instead, we now have the repubs recreating history by blaming Obama for the financial mess they themselves caused and to add incredularity to the insanity they're operating under, they'll have us believe that the exact same ideologically driven policies that put us into this great big financial hole we're in is supposed to fix things if we'll just let them do it all over again. W.T.F.? :thumbsdown:

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

LOL you libtards, still blaming Bush and the Republicans for the recession is like still blaming OBL and al Qaeda for 9/11. Both are Obama's fault now, RAWR!

 

[ProfJohn]

You do realize the reasons Obama's budgets are so high is because of things Bush started and put into play right? He has to stay the course on certain things already decided on before he even took office. If he had a clean slate, no wars, no house collapse etc his budget would not be as high.

Basically take your head out of your ass and look at the big picture with your blinders off, hack.

Seriously??

In 2008 we have a $2.9 trillion budget.
This year we have a $3.8 trillion budget.

What Bush policy caused this $800 billion per year increase in spending?

The wars? Spending on them is the same or less than when Bush was in office.

Housing crisis? Where are we spending money on the housing crisis? TARP has come and gone (almost) we aren't spending more money today due to the housing crash.

Unemployment: I will give you that one, and welfare spending as well, but there is no way it amounts to $800 billion more than just 3 years ago.

Spending under Obama has gone through the roof and you can't blame this spending on Bush.

 

[ProfJohn]

Sigh. At the end of FY 1981, total federal debt was <$1T. At the end of FY 1989, it was >$2.8T. It was >$4.6T when his successor GHWB left office..

And by time Obama's first term is over he will have doubled that amount.

 

[ProfJohn]

This article is over a year old, but it still fits and completely explains Obama's spending problems and how they are HIS problems and not Bush's.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/03/obamas_deficits_arent_bushs_fault_100150.html
Partial quote leaving of start of article.

Even with Bush's tax cuts, federal revenues in 2007 were at the average as a percentage of GDP, 18.5 percent, going back to 1960. The deficit was just 1.2 percent of GDP, historically on the low side. Accumulated federal debt was 36 percent of GDP.

Then the recession hit. From 2008 to 2009, federal spending increased 18 percent. This was a budget year that straddled the Bush and Obama presidencies. But the spending increase was driven by anti-recession measures, predominately the Bush stimulus and bailouts.

Obama supported these measures. In fact, his complaint about the Bush stimulus was that it was too small.

This raises a question of political ontology: If Obama agreed with Bush, is it still just Bush's fault?

The Bush tax cuts expire this year. Except for the legacy costs of the Iraq war, Obama is free to recommend changing anything Bush did. The deficits he recommends from 2011 on are purely his own.

And they are massive, and driven by spending.

Obama proposes that the federal government spend over 25 percent of GDP in 2011, compared to a historical average of around 20.5 percent. He justifies this as necessary to continue to fight the recession.

Obama, however, projects that the recession will be fully over in 2011 and robust growth under way. Yet he proposes that federal spending continue to be nearly 24 percent of GDP through 2020.

In other words, rather than wind down the additional recession spending after recovery, Obama is proposing that it simply become a new, higher base.

After the World War II debt was reduced, accumulated federal debt never exceeded 50 percent of GDP until 2009, when it reached 53 percent. Under Obama's recommendations it would grow to 77 percent by 2020.

If Obama were to recommend a path to return spending to its historical share of economic output, in 2020 the deficit would be just $255 billion, about what the federal government spends each year on large capital projects, and just 1 percent of GDP. In other words, not a problem. And federal spending would have still increased by more than 4 percent a year since 2008.

Instead, Obama recommends a 2020 deficit of over $1 trillion and a troubling 4.2 percent of GDP.

Rather than recommend deficit reducing measures himself, Obama wants to turn the job over to a bipartisan commission. Republicans suspect a rat, an attempt to get them to support even larger tax increases than Obama is already proposing.

They are right. Under Obama's budget, revenues are already projected to be 19.6 percent of GDP, much higher than the historical average. Yet he still proposes trillion dollar deficits.

The problem is spending. Obama wants to do too much of it.

I like the part about how the recession should have been over by now...

 

[Jhhnn]

What Bush policy caused this $800 billion per year increase in spending?

The economic policies of looting, overextension of credit, boom & bust.

Increased spending is largely the result of automatic stabilizers- more unemployed & under employed people means more spending on foodstamps, unemployment, welfare & so forth. Plus the assuption of GSE debt. Plus turning the corner on SS- it's no longer a cash cow, but a cash sink.

None of which was unpredictable under the circumstances, circumstances that are the direct result of a top down looting spree encouraged and blessed by Republican governance... one that's still occurring, thanks to ultra low tax rates at the top...

When income distribution shifts radically to the top, to higher tax brackets, it would seem logical that govt revenues would increase, huh? But they haven't, because top tier tax rates have been cut just as fast or faster than top earners' share of income has increased...

It's a great time to be rich. Not only is their share of national income over twice what it was in 1980, their average effective tax rate has fallen by a third or more. Their grip on politics & media has increased greatly, as well, to the point where few dare speak the truth, and the media wouldn't cover it if they did.

Middle class conservatives are deep in denial, suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome, where they mistakenly sympathize and identify with the people holding them hostage... apparently because it's emotionally satisfying to do so, to receive their daily dose of moralistic self righteous outrage to maintain that comfort zone of denial...

 

[ProfJohn]

The economic policies of looting, overextension of credit, boom & bust.

Increased spending is largely the result of automatic stabilizers- more unemployed & under employed people means more spending on foodstamps, unemployment, welfare & so forth. Plus the assuption of GSE debt. Plus turning the corner on SS- it's no longer a cash cow, but a cash sink.

NONE of that amounts to $800 billion in additional spending.

Unemployment itself amounts to about $100 billion in extra spending.

Where is the other $700 billion going too?

And if all this additional spending is due to the recession then how come it doesn't go away when the recession goes away? Obama's own projection was that the recession would be over by the end of this year and yet he has no plan to reduce all this recession related spending.

Look at Obama's own 2012 budget and explain to my why he keeps spending well above historic levels until 2016? If the recession is coming to an end shouldn't all that spending come to an end too?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf

 

[RightIsWrong]

The answer is right before your eyes ProfJohn but you refuse to open them to see it.

Obama's spending won't go down because those that got him elected don't want it to go down. It's in the same vane that Bush I & II's spending never, ever went down and it's the reason that spending never decreased when the Republicans held both houses of Congress.

Both parties are there to serve the very rich and very powerful because that is the only way that they, the politicians, can ultimately become part of that very elite group of the top .01&#37; of the wealthiest Americans.

There is no other explanation for Democratic voters voting in lying and dishonest Democratic politicians who never fulfill any of their campaign promises even when they own a commanding majority and it is the same in reverse with Republican voters putting people into office that blatantly enact policies that go against their own self interests.

Quit your bitching about Obama and the Democrats because every single item you can bring up about them is being done by the Republicans in spades. The fact that you are too stupidly blinded by the manipulation of an "us against them" charade makes you and everyone else (Craig...you're deep in this camp also) look idiotic.

 

[ProfJohn]

When income distribution shifts radically to the top, to higher tax brackets, it would seem logical that govt revenues would increase, huh? But they haven't, because top tier tax rates have been cut just as fast or faster than top earners' share of income has increased...

Yep, the rich are making more money than they have ever made.
But so are the poor (pre-recession)

As you can see from the chart the people at the top are certainly getting richer, but the poor aren't getting poorer.

If the rich are looting the economy (as you claim) then who are they taking the money from? The poor have as much money as they have ever had. So does the middle class.

The fact is our economy is a huge creator of wealth and has been for decades and the vast majority of that created wealth is going to rich.
From 1987 till 2009 household wealth tripled. Most of that wealth went to the rich (which isn't a good thing) but it is not like the rich are getting richer by stealing money from the poor. In that same time frame the amount of taxes taken from the poor has dropped and the amount of government benefits given to them has increased. Pre-recession the poor were probably in better shape than at any time in our history. In fact our "poor" live a better life style than many middle class people in Europe.

 

[ProfJohn]

The fact that you are too stupidly blinded by the manipulation of an "us against them" charade makes you and everyone else (Craig...you're deep in this camp also) look idiotic.

Looks at user name :hmm:

 

[nonlnear]

Looks at user name :hmm:

Maybe it's a Nietzschian thing...

 

[Craig234]

The answer is right before your eyes ProfJohn but you refuse to open them to see it.

Obama's spending won't go down because those that got him elected don't want it to go down. It's in the same vane that Bush I & II's spending never, ever went down and it's the reason that spending never decreased when the Republicans held both houses of Congress.

Both parties are there to serve the very rich and very powerful because that is the only way that they, the politicians, can ultimately become part of that very elite group of the top .01% of the wealthiest Americans.

There is no other explanation for Democratic voters voting in lying and dishonest Democratic politicians who never fulfill any of their campaign promises even when they own a commanding majority and it is the same in reverse with Republican voters putting people into office that blatantly enact policies that go against their own self interests.

Quit your bitching about Obama and the Democrats because every single item you can bring up about them is being done by the Republicans in spades. The fact that you are too stupidly blinded by the manipulation of an "us against them" charade makes you and everyone else (Craig...you're deep in this camp also) look idiotic.

Throwing insults and not backing them up makes you look idiotic and a step towards ignore. If you can make a point against what I post, make it. You haven't.

What you did post was a mish mash of some obvious and some wrong, naive things.

For example, you claim politicians' goal is to 'join the top 0.1%'. Completely wrong.

Almost no politician makes it there, and that's not their goal - but those who are there want to control the agenda. The wealthiest politicians can be good - like the Kennedys.

The poorer politicians can sell their souls to the powerful and do terrible policies.

 

[Craig234]

Yep, the rich are making more money than they have ever made.
But so are the poor (pre-recession)

No, the rich are making FAR more than they used to - the top 0.1&#37; is up many hundreds of percent - while the bottom 80% have gotten about no increase for 30 years.

As you can see from the chart the people at the top are certainly getting richer, but the poor aren't getting poorer.

With the economy doubling and ALL of the doubled growth going to the top 20%, 80% mostly to the top of that 20%, the poor have stayed even - but have a much smaller share of the wealth. And that is poorer, because money has no firm value - it's about dividing up the wealth.

Is the bottom 80% better off with $1 trillion while the top 20% have $1 trillion; or is the bottom 80% better off with $10 trillion while the top 20% have $100 trillion?

All this concentration of wealth is in fact making everyone poorer while the top 1% own more and more of everything. Add debt to that and it's much worse.

If the rich are looting the economy (as you claim) then who are they taking the money from? The poor have as much money as they have ever had. So does the middle class.

See above.

You and your friend each have a similar income. Then the economy grows and he takes it all while you get nothing after inflation. He then has twice your wealth, 3 times, 4 times. Now, you have as much money as you had - but he's bought all the nice things in town you wanted because he could outspend you. Who looted the economy? He did. Now he owns where you work (you make him more money), he owns your house (you pay him rent), he owns your car (you can only afford to lease from him).

The fact is our economy is a huge creator of wealth and has been for decades and the vast majority of that created wealth is going to rich.
From 1987 till 2009 household wealth tripled. Most of that wealth went to the rich (which isn't a good thing)

You're doing pretty well up to that point. The problem with your chart is that it only lists the top 5% - find the numbers for the top 1%, top 0.01%, top 400 families.

Seriously, try to find them.

but it is not like the rich are getting richer by stealing money from the poor.

Except they are. I gave you an example above. What happens is two equal businesses have one of them get all the growth, so one becomes far larger while the other is flat?

So now one still has the same one store, the same size and revenue, while the other has 10 nice new stores all around the area with much better quality and salaries?

You can't just tell the first store 'you have the same revenue, no problem'.

"A rising tide lifts all boats" - the last 30 years, it hasn't. A rising tide lifted all yachts.

In that same time frame the amount of taxes taken from the poor has dropped and the amount of government benefits given to them has increased. Pre-recession the poor were probably in better shape than at any time in our history.

There is some benefit to the standard of living from technology improvements. Makes cars better, TV's are better, we have microwaves instead of only coal stoves.

But that doesn't change the problems from the concentration of wealth, which allows fewer people to own more and more of the companies and financial assets.

Which gives them more political power, as they get the rules changed in their favor so that money is more and more important to elections, which only they can afford.

Edit: Go look for the top 0.01% chart - it's impressive. But I got the 1% for you.

These are a bit misleading, because each bracket is skewed by those at the top. Take a look at the top 1% and the top 20% brackets - if you take that top 1% out of the top 20%, it would leave the rest of the top 20% a lot flatter.

It's kind of like talking about what happens to the average net worth in a room when Bill Gates comes in.

 

[dca221]

Seriously??

In 2008 we have a $2.9 trillion budget.
This year we have a $3.8 trillion budget.

What Bush policy caused this $800 billion per year increase in spending?

Since you are too lazy to look up facts before you share your wisdom, I'll do your work for you:

Category 2008 2011Estimate --> Difference
Defense $616B $768B --> $152B
Soc Sec 617 748 --> 131
Income Sec 431 622 --> 191 (unemployment, housing, food asst)
Medicare 391 494 --> 104
Health 280 388 --> 108 (healthcare services)
Education 91 115 --> 24
Veterans Svcs 85 141 --> 57
Physical Resources 162 214 --> 53
Net Interest 253 207 --> -46
Other Functions 142 209 --> 67 (includes Int'l Affairs, Justice)
Offsetting Receipts -86 -90
TOTAL: $2,982 $3,819 --> $836B

About $150B of the increase in in defense (I thought Obama was weak on defense!!!)
Nearly $250B of the increase is in social security, and medicare (Is Obama socialist???)
nearly $200B of the increase is in unemployment insurance, housing assistance, food assistance (I knew Obama is a socialist!!! Recession be damned, cut that damn assistance shit to the poor, we need to give tax cuts to the rich)
About $100B of the increase in in Healthcare (why bother investing in the nation's health? Let the insurance companies in the private market take care of them. I am now certain Obama is a socialist!!!)

And by the way, 2.5&#37; inflation increase over three years from $2.9T would be $225B

So Prof John, now that some sucker did your homework for you, and you see where the increase has been, can you tell us:

where is Obama's $800B spending increase?

If George W Bush had stayed in office for four more years, how much of the $800B would he not have? Would he have cut the $150B in defense? Or $250B in SS and Medicare? Or $50B in veterans services?

Meanwhile, the total receipts in 2008 were $2,523B, in 2011Est they are $2,173B, $350B less!!! If the receipts had simply increased by 2.5% since 2008 (had there been no recession, that is), they would stand at roughly $2,725, $550B more than today! Will you blame that on Obama too?

The Republicans put this country, not in a ditch, but in an abyss. And you have the audacity to ask " where is Obama's $800B?"

Give me an effing break

PS: all the data you need is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

But I warn you, the facts may conflict with your opinions

 

[Jhhnn]

NONE of that amounts to $800 billion in additional spending.

Unemployment itself amounts to about $100 billion in extra spending.

Where is the other $700 billion going too?

And if all this additional spending is due to the recession then how come it doesn't go away when the recession goes away? Obama's own projection was that the recession would be over by the end of this year and yet he has no plan to reduce all this recession related spending.

Look at Obama's own 2012 budget and explain to my why he keeps spending well above historic levels until 2016? If the recession is coming to an end shouldn't all that spending come to an end too?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf

Here's a graphic to explain where it all goes-

http://www.hivegroup.com/gallery/2012budget/

The recession isn't really coming to an end for middle america- just for the people at the top. There was barely any recovery in terms of employment from the 2001 downturn during the Bush years. The false prosperity of the Ownership Society was an illusion. Offshoring and automation have eliminated many, many jobs, and that phenomenon is ongoing, accelerating, I suspect. Capitalists are making near record profits while industry operates at partial capacity.

If America's wealthiest are no longer willing to deliver on their end of the social contract in terms of jobs, then they need to be made to deliver in terms of taxes instead, so that govt can deliver the jobs & benefits that people need to participate in the economy. The wealthy will still receive the lion's share of growth, just at a lower level, like the rest of the first world...