*with his permission, what follows is a dialogue that my friend Hippy Tim (oddly, the conservative in the conversation) and I had over the last week or so via email--I've cleaned it up for readability. I should probably mention that you want to start at the bottom and work your way to the top--which, btw, is a favorite Republican mantra. Now, w/out further ado--our version of Crossfire!
note: I've highlighted my text in orange (Tim is a huge Mets fan) to make it easier to see who is saying what.
* * * * *
hey, Tim--no, I know you are engaging in a civil discussion--no worries.
I, however, do have a persuasive intent in my responses to you, and it's not to win an argument per se, but it is to fix what you and I both see as the problem. Where you and I differ is that I see the Republican "fix" as the problem--I think I've written enough to you about it, but just look at the situation from arm's length:
Bush implements huge tax cuts; surplus goes away; worst economy since Great Depression--and folks want to continue to cut taxes? What am I missing? The history of the 20th century shows the opposite effect of what R's advocate--the economy does worse with aggressive tax cuts.
Many honest, smart people will tell you that tax cuts typically don't have the stimulative effect that even unemployment insurance has on the economy (crazy, I know!). I just don't see historical evidence that supports supply side economics . . . the economy does best when we all do best and therefore we become consumers of the products that we all make here. Unless you're sitting on the board of a large corporation, I don't see how you personally (or me, for that matter) benefit from Republican policies.
Free market/trickle down/stimulative tax cuts are things that border on religion--you have to have faith that they work, and, again, I just don't see the historical evidence. Record profits for corporations? If it doesn't help the populace at large, then what's the point?
peace
Eric
________________________________
wow. i hope you know that i am not trying to be argumentative.... and there are quite a few things that i agree with in your commentary. but it is a recipe for continued paralysis. i am interested in solutions only. i stay away from what i call... KNEECAPPERS like hannity/michele malkin on the right and ... only because you cite them .... rachel maddow and ezra klein on the left. i enjoy the intellectual types on both sides like thomas sowell or lanny davis. you are sophisticated enough to know that the romney/buffet types pay only capital gains tax rates... not income tax rates. income that remains after you pay taxes the first time... is used to invest in business ventures. sometimes they fail sometimes not. if the business fails... only 10% of the investment can be written off. we want to encourage these investments... which is why clinton lowered the rate. but the big picture to me... a right winger could duplicate the response that you sent..... but where does that get us? you are not going to agree with them.... they won't agree with you. the decision is do you want that tired KNEECAPPING to end so that we can save the country.... or is a rhetorical victory over the hated opposition more important. i know where i stand.. because i truly fear for the effects on the most vunerable among us. throughout these correspondences with you... that is what i have been unartfully trying to get across. happy easter brotherman!!! to you and yours
________________________________
i don't feel this is partisan. i am unconcerned about how we got here. that is a recipe for disaster. have we not had enough of the blame game?
Listen, I'm not a cheerleader for the Democrats--they have enough of their flaws that I have criticized (see blog), but to not understand how we got into this situation is to ensure that we do it again and we undertake counter-productive steps to correct it. Tax cuts killed our surplus and adds to the deficit every day--to not acknowledge that is walk around the bright pink elephant in the living room. How many more ways can we demonstrate that "trickle-down" economics are a parlor game, and Bush 1 had it right when he called it "voodoo economics."
Go look at middle class incomes since 1980--losing traction while the wealthy continue to swell their bank accts, and w/ the terror of the estate tax being codified, we can put another nail into our meritocracy--just like merry old England--it'll be even more of the birth lottery than it is.
It was reckless, self-serving, and manipulative for the Bush tax cuts in the first place during at least two wars (and the same could be said for Dems who go along w/ them, even now.). I will give the R's props--they're masters at framing the narrative and the ensuing discussion. Even beyond that has been their ability to get working class and middle class voters to vote against their own self-interest (I'm not pointing at you, just a wink at you). And just to underscore the point: how much money could we generate if the Mitt Romneys paid more than 14% in taxes--less than what you and I paid last year. And before folks cry about oppressive tax rates, know that they're at their lowest since the 50s.
Blame? This is calling out failed policies and hoping we don't continue to fall into the trap. A tax code that asks Warren Buffett's secretary to pay a higher percentage in taxes is not the recipe for long-term success.
by 2015-16 we will be paying so much interest on our debt to china... about 300 billion...that they will have their defense budget paid for by U.S. taxpayers. by about 2021 the INTEREST on the debt will be about one trillion a year. these are the kind of numbers we are looking at. the bush tax cuts are about 700 billion... OVER 10 YEARS. 70 billion a year. not something that will make any significant difference.
Not sure where your numbers are coming from, but the Congressional Budget Office (non-partisan) cites the Bush tax cuts dollars and its impact on the deficit. Sounds pretty significant to me--wouldn't going back to the Clinton tax rates, when the economy did pretty well, seem to be an easy fix? I mean before we start asking folks who make less than 20K to pony up more money so that Romney and the like can offshore more of their money and pass it on to their children shouldn't we at least explore policy that generated a budget surplus?
btw, China owns about 8% of our debt (I think), and several other countries actually have higher percentages--Japan and France come to mind. Again, deficits matter but not nearly as you and others make it out. Again, tell me why we don't worry about deficits when Reagan and Bush run up our debt? I'm waiting . . . we had 8 years under Bush and 8 years under Reagan--the size of the government increased and the deficits increased. This isn't blame game; this is to highlight flawed policy that is detrimental to the majority of Americans--you and I included. You know what I want right now? I want my government borrowing MORE money (have you seen interest rates lately?)--it's how we got out of the Great Depression--the government needs to increase demand; the private sector can't/won't do it alone (profits have never, ever been higher yet the economy is still weak--why?)
our politicians have made promises that cannot be kept. not even close. for those under 55.. they can choose to stay with the current program... or a voucher to choose among competing insurers. out of pocket will be means tested. will everyone take a hit. YES. will everyone take a bigger hit if we do nothing YES. will the poor be hurt the most if we do nothing... absolutely. but it is time for us to put on our big boy pants . i would welcome a written plan from the left to compare/contrast to the ryan budget. i am sure that there will be aspects of their plan..... if it is ever written.. that will be helpful in the debate. i am not advocating the ryan budget....
If nothing else happens (including taking money from it for other expenditures), Social Security is fully solvent until 2036. Yes, we need make changes but frankly it's silly at best to tell the custodian at the local school he can't retire until he's 70 b/c we want Romney/Buffet paying 14% in taxes. What's the cap for SS anyway? 100K, I believe--might that not be a place to start? And both parties continue to kick the can down the road, partly b/c taxes have becomes such a dirty word--the conversation neither party is willing to have w/ Americans is our need to increase revenue; this is so obvious that I'm not sure why it's not part of the debate. Go back and look at some of the negotiations that Reagan had regarding the deficit--he understood the need to increase revenue and actually raised taxes on Americans at least 7 times during his presidency--again, why is this not part of our current discussion? (start the blame w/ the Grover Norquist-types) And the comparison is available here:
*(I couldn't find the one chart that I saw that showed any current Republican candidate budget plan would actually increase the deficit over Obama's plan--but here are some other tidbits. btw, this isn't partisanship--I might vote for Jill Stein. I'm simply pointing out that the R's aren't offering a solution to your primary concern)
*from Ezra Klein on the Rachel Maddow Show on Feb. 13, 2012. (I formatted this a bit to aid reading) Right now, taxes are way, way, way low. In 2011, tax revenues were 15.4 percent of GDP.
To give you an idea of how low that is, before the financial crisis, you had to go back to 1950 -- 1950 -- to find a year when taxes were that low. In 1950, there was no Medicare, there was no Medicaid, there wasn`t even a Hawaii as one of the 50 states of the United States.For comparison sake, taxes under Reagan were 18.2 percent of GDP.
So, think about that next time you hear about Obama is taxing the economy to death. Taxes under Obama are lower, at least they have been so far, than they were under Reagan. It`s not even close.Now, taxes are so low right now Obama the Bush tax cuts brought them there, and because of the recession. But as the economy recovers, takes will come back a bit, too.
Budget experts say they`ll get back to 17.9 percent of GDP. That`s if we just keep the Bush tax cuts and let the economy come back. But if that happens our deficits will be huge -- huge. So we have to do something.
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31066137/media-kit/>
But Mitt Romney and President Obama have very, very, very different ideas as to what to do and who should pay for it.Obama`s budget wants to raise taxes on the rich by $1.5 trillion. That means taxes rise to 19.2 percent of GDP.
Romney meanwhile wants to cut taxes further. His plan would extend all of the Bush tax cuts and then further reduce taxes on the rich. Taxes would fall to about 17 percent of GDP.But what`s really interesting in these two plans is who would pay.
The Tax Policy Center is this great group of non-partisan wonks who look at all these policies in way more detail than I even can stand. But every so often, they emerge from their caves and they sort of blink because they
haven`t seen the sunlight forever, and they give us great estimates how much different groups of people would pay under the different plans.And they`ve looked at Obama and Romney`s plans. Turns out very different groups of people would pay.
If you are in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution, in Obama`s plan you`ll pay federal tax rate of 1.8 percent. Under Romney`s plan, you`ll pay almost double that, 3.4 percent. That`s the poorest group.
If you`re in the middle, it`s a lot closer, 15.2 percent under Obama`s plan, 15.6 percent under Romney`s plan. But if you`re in that top 1 percent, as both Romney and Obama are, the difference becomes huge. Under
Obama`s plan, you pay 36.3 percent. Under Romney`s plan, 25.9 percent.
To get that out of percents and into dollars, if you`re in the top 1 percent, under Romney, your taxes will be $160,000 lower than it will be under Obama, $160,000. Tax cuts of that size cost a lot of money, trillions of dollars. And Romney`s promised he won`t pay for that by cutting defense. He`s promised he won`t pay for it by raising taxes elsewhere and his promise to balance the budget. So, you can actually run the numbers.
To make those numbers work, to make the taxes and spending balance out, he will have to cut almost twice as deep in spending as Paul Ryan`s budget does. It means he will have to cut every single domestic program,
including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all of them by 36 percent -- 36 percent.
And you know who relies on domestic programs like those? Senior citizens and the poor. Think all of the seniors voting Republican want a 36 percent cut to Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for Romney`s
tax cuts for the wealthy? I sort of doubt it.
*this one analyzes Ryan's budget: <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/paul-ryans-budget-should-the-poor-pay-for-deficit-reduction/2011/08/25/gIQAxawWPS_blog.html>
*from Mike Lofgren, retired Republican Congressional staffer (28 yrs): The Republican hopefuls who want to relieve Obama of his job would not simply add two or three trillion dollars of deficits over the next decade, as the president has proposed to do. Mitt Romney, who touts his business acumen as a prime qualification to be president, makes Obama appear as tight-fisted as Grover Cleveland by comparison. Romney's initial tax plan<http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/upload/description-Romney-plan.pdf> was as follows: those making more than $1 million a year would receive an average federal income tax cut of $145,000 by 2015. This scheme would increase deficits by about $180 billion annually by 2015, according to the Tax Policy Center. But apparently that was not enough to satisfy his contributors, so at the end of February 2012, Romney added a 20 percent cut in all income tax rates and a repeal of the AMT. The Center estimated<http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3298> that the 20 percent rate cut would add an additional $150 billion to the deficit in 2015 alone. The policy group did not calculate a ten-year estimate, but it is safe to say that Romney's new and improved boondoggle would add about $3 trillion over ten years on top of Obama's pre-existing plan to increase the deficit by $2.7 trillion.
*also from same policy guy who wrote the excerpt below: <http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/04/05/3-conservative-myths-about-government>
*from US News: The Ryan budget aspires to cut the budget deficit (as a share of the economy) from 8.7 percent of Gross Domestic Product, known as GDP, last year to 1.2 percent in 2022. That's the same 2022 deficit that the Congressional Budget Office estimates we would reach anyway if we made no significant legislative changes affecting the budget for the next 10 years (see office's "baseline" projections here<http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/March2012Baseline.pdf>).
we have incredible fiscal problems at the city-state level also that are about to blow up. smart people disagree about whether tax cuts have been good/bad. but there is another record in history to consider......the record of govt centered economys. zero successes. there are two sides on the coin. there is one question the right asks the left constantly...... but the left never gives a firm answer. i believe you will.. so i will ask you. considering state local and federal taxes... at what percentage does it become immoral. i say not a dime over 50% in state local and federal combined.
Yeah, the big problems are coming from the shift in the tax burden--the economy did quite well from the late 1940s through the early/mid '70s with much higher tax rates than we're paying now. The problem is that the cut in federal income tax (which is a progressive tax) is forcing local/states to go to increasing our sales tax, for example, which is a regressive tax. You and I paying more in sales tax is a bigger slice of our pie than Romney/Buffet paying the same sales tax.
And, yes, smart people debate the merits of tax cuts but most economists cut through the politics and tell we can't fix it w/out bumping up the revenues. Again, even Reagan did this. I'm not sure what the magic number is, but I know if Romney/Buffet are paying only 14% in federal taxes that money is ultimately coming from you and me. When the economy did well, generally, for 30+ years, our tax rates were higher than they are now. So, it's not the "taxes kill the economy" argument can really stand up to scrutiny. The other thing to keep in mind: many in Ohio are now paying over 25% of their income for healthcare--why are we paying the middlemen (the insurance companies)? Other countries are smarter and more upfront about this and this is why they have universal healthcare--everyone pays their fair share. Imagine how stimulative it would be to the economy if small businesses didn't have to pay for helathcare--wow, how many people could they hire then? And imagine the buying power we would have if everyone chips in--Medicare for all makes a lot of sense.
I think I've gone on entirely too long--thanks for listening. As a former Republican who voted for George W. Bush in 2000, I would encourage you to challenge your party, your assumptions--I try to do this. For a while, I was entrenched entirely in Democrats good, Republicans bad but that's not overly fruitful either. Both parties are not very responsive to their constituents and both serve corporate needs over our own. Having said that, I don't recognize this Republican party at all. This is an ugly, new creation. And with all due respect, Tim, I'm not sure how folks from the middle can even get behind their self-serving and destructive policies. I don't say this to be inflammatory or to not value your opinion/position, but simply as someone looking at what the party in general is advocating, whether it be budgetary or social policy--it's a far cry from Eisenhower and even Reagan.
I think the Occupy Movement is on the right track and am hopeful that we can get our government back from the corporations. Until then, we're both probably screwed.
good talking to you--
peace
Eric
________________________________
i don't feel this is partisan. i am unconcerned about how we got here. that is a recipe for disaster. have we not had enough of the blame game? by 2015-16 we will be paying so much interest on our debt to china... about 300 billion...that they will have their defense budget paid for by U.S. taxpayers. by about 2021 the INTEREST on the debt will be about one trillion a year. these are the kind of numbers we are looking at. the bush tax cuts are about 700 billion... OVER 10 YEARS. 70 billion a year. not something that will make any significant difference. our politicians have made promises that cannot be kept. not even close. for those under 55.. they can choose to stay with the current program... or a voucher to choose among competing insurers. out of pocket will be means tested. will everyone take a hit. YES. will everyone take a bigger hit if we do nothing YES. will the poor be hurt the most if we do nothing... absolutely. but it is time for us to put on our big boy pants . i would welcome a written plan from the left to compare/contrast to the ryan budget. i am sure that there will be aspects of their plan..... if it is ever written.. that will be helpful in the debate. i am not advocating the ryan budget.... i am open to all suggestions. we have incredible fiscal problems at the city-state level also that are about to blow up. smart people disagree about whether tax cuts have been good/bad. but there is another record in history to consider......the record of govt centered economys. zero successes. there are two sides on the coin. there is one question the right asks the left constantly...... but the left never gives a firm answer. i believe you will.. so i will ask you. considering state local and federal taxes... at what percentage does it become immoral. i say not a dime over 50% in state local and federal combined. watched the end of that tribe game last nite. rough. but masterson looked great. best wishes tim
________________________________
Dear, Mr. Met.
We should really meet over on my blog (it was help build my content) :-)
But, since you asked . . . yes, that's the basic difference between Republicans and Democrats--how to "fix" the economy--we each have our standard approaches. However, since we've had about 10 years of tax cutting as a way to stimulate the economy, I think it's fairly safe to say that it's not working as well as the R's would have us believe (the problem is that Obama, in an effort to be seen as a centrist, has neutered his best progressive plans by implementing/continuing tax cuts rather than actual stimulative efforts; i.e., spending by the Fed government.
Before I forget, you should read my post from tonight--it addresses this topic more thoroughly. But, let me say this--
1. since when did deficits become the boogy man? They're not good, by any means, but they're most definitely not the biggest problem we face economically. (ironically, deficits grew under Reagan and Bush--and they weren't a big deal. But now we have a Democrat in the WH and it's "the sky is falling"). Now, this, of course, doesn't mean we ignore it but we ensure its full negative impact if we cut gov spending (again, see tonight's post for explanation).
2. fixes, you ask? do nothing . . . allow the Bush tax cuts to expire; half the deficit goes away. The other half? stop fighting our wars--voila, deficit nearly gone, and we didn't have to blame workers who serve the public good (firefighters, cops, teachers, et al.).
3. go look at unbiased assessments of the budget plans being offered by the Presidential candidates--you'll never guess whose plan does the best . . . btw, anybody who makes under 250,000 shouldn't touch that plan being offered up by Paul Ryan (coupons for Medicare? come on, Man).
we'll talk more soon--here's to the Mets and Tribe meeting in Oct.
peace
Eric
________________________________
i had a question regarding your mar 31st blog. as i mentioned before... i feel the poor/infirm will be devastated if we do not stop with these trillion dollar deficits. others will be hurt also... but have more resources to cushion the blow. you may not believe this... but the right does not want to do anything but help the poor. they just disagree with the remedies of the left. do you have ideas on deficit reduction... or does it just not matter. it matters to me because i do care and want to avoid a meltdown.... which.. again.... will devastate the poor disproportionately. respectfully mr.met
________________________________
I'm w/ ya, Brother--I think there is a simple solution (but oh so hard to implement): money in politics, get rid of it. Right now we're not being represented, the corporations are and we the rabble are really just flotsam right now, for the most part.
And I'm w/ you specifically on the hypocrisy--if you're going to bang on Bush for wireless wire-tapping, then you better bang on Obama for Pvt. Manning, black sites, drones, and the assassination of a US citizen w/out trial (just to name a few).
good hearing from you--
be well
Eric
________________________________
the funny thing about our present polarized politics is how each side gets dramatic about about the part of the issue that they want to address and purposely ignore the part of the issue that does not fit their template. it is really fun to watch. that is the fun for me in politics. the kind of hypocracy that is slightly submerged. you won't see it if you are not informed. that is what they count on.... and with people so quick to cast aspersions on the other side... it goes mostly unnoticed by the great unwashed. but both sides... even the fire-breathers love america. which makes everything even more heartbreaking. because i fear we are in very serious trouble on many fronts. and i am starting to lose faith in whether we will be able to fix things. i wish we could have a referendum on firing every senator and congressperson and starting anew with new people who would need to pledge to cooperate/compromise. it would be interesting to see if it would pass. but today is opening day!!!! as i send this the mets are tied for 1st place!!!!! peace tw
________________________________
"The needs of the poor take priority over the desires of the rich; the rights of workers over the maximization of profits; the preservation of the environment over uncontrolled industrial expansion; production to meet social needs over production for military purposes." Pope John Paul II
________________________________
that is the first blog i have ever read. thanks, Tim--I appreciate that. you seem dedicated to your positions.. a great american tradition. do you know any informed conservatives that you have a friendly exchange with? it is always best to test your views vs. the opposing view.... it can confirm your view... or make you reconsider. yeah, I like give/take as much as the next guy and I think this is a good idea--USA Today carries Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel in this format/approach--truth be told, I think it's more of a secondary purpose of the blog--my main goal is to talk to people above/around mainstream media, who no longer report news but sensationalize and ultimately distort truth and fact--we saw how nearly all media mishandled the Iraq War yet they're doing it again w/ Iran. It's sorta--yeah, this is what is being said but let me tell you what it really means--although I am much more humble than that sounds. i like the cambridge debate forum.. roberts rules of order and all. i saw a great one from the late christopher hitchens vs ramesh ponneru.. name misspelled... on religion. both men breathtakingly smart. although i am christian.. i try to view intellectual argument with an open mind. i thought ramesh pinned him. unfortunately for me... i have tried this with a couple of close friends thinking it would go fine. i ended up being sadly mistaken. you're right--most people don't want truth--they want media,et al to confirm or re-affirm what they already believe; friends of mine won't even watch Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert b/c of their "politics" i have a pretty easy going attitude about it. to me it is like a met fan teasing a yankee fan. all in good fun. the liberals i have tried to engage intellectually have resorted to saying things with the intent of being hurtful. I really tried to guard against this--its' the old adage abut religion and politics, right? don't discuss them w/ family or friends--no upside (haha). oh well.. lessons learned. but i have to remind you of my fear.... that i get to heaven and find out that everything i was certain of was incorrect. i think it is good to consider. keeps one humble. good luck with your blog!! i enjoyed reading it. thanks again for reading (and writing)--be well, Eric PS--I've put up a few more posts over the weekend . . . feel free to chime in.
tim
note: I've highlighted my text in orange (Tim is a huge Mets fan) to make it easier to see who is saying what.
* * * * *
hey, Tim--no, I know you are engaging in a civil discussion--no worries.
I, however, do have a persuasive intent in my responses to you, and it's not to win an argument per se, but it is to fix what you and I both see as the problem. Where you and I differ is that I see the Republican "fix" as the problem--I think I've written enough to you about it, but just look at the situation from arm's length:
Bush implements huge tax cuts; surplus goes away; worst economy since Great Depression--and folks want to continue to cut taxes? What am I missing? The history of the 20th century shows the opposite effect of what R's advocate--the economy does worse with aggressive tax cuts.
Many honest, smart people will tell you that tax cuts typically don't have the stimulative effect that even unemployment insurance has on the economy (crazy, I know!). I just don't see historical evidence that supports supply side economics . . . the economy does best when we all do best and therefore we become consumers of the products that we all make here. Unless you're sitting on the board of a large corporation, I don't see how you personally (or me, for that matter) benefit from Republican policies.
Free market/trickle down/stimulative tax cuts are things that border on religion--you have to have faith that they work, and, again, I just don't see the historical evidence. Record profits for corporations? If it doesn't help the populace at large, then what's the point?
peace
Eric
________________________________
wow. i hope you know that i am not trying to be argumentative.... and there are quite a few things that i agree with in your commentary. but it is a recipe for continued paralysis. i am interested in solutions only. i stay away from what i call... KNEECAPPERS like hannity/michele malkin on the right and ... only because you cite them .... rachel maddow and ezra klein on the left. i enjoy the intellectual types on both sides like thomas sowell or lanny davis. you are sophisticated enough to know that the romney/buffet types pay only capital gains tax rates... not income tax rates. income that remains after you pay taxes the first time... is used to invest in business ventures. sometimes they fail sometimes not. if the business fails... only 10% of the investment can be written off. we want to encourage these investments... which is why clinton lowered the rate. but the big picture to me... a right winger could duplicate the response that you sent..... but where does that get us? you are not going to agree with them.... they won't agree with you. the decision is do you want that tired KNEECAPPING to end so that we can save the country.... or is a rhetorical victory over the hated opposition more important. i know where i stand.. because i truly fear for the effects on the most vunerable among us. throughout these correspondences with you... that is what i have been unartfully trying to get across. happy easter brotherman!!! to you and yours
________________________________
i don't feel this is partisan. i am unconcerned about how we got here. that is a recipe for disaster. have we not had enough of the blame game?
Listen, I'm not a cheerleader for the Democrats--they have enough of their flaws that I have criticized (see blog), but to not understand how we got into this situation is to ensure that we do it again and we undertake counter-productive steps to correct it. Tax cuts killed our surplus and adds to the deficit every day--to not acknowledge that is walk around the bright pink elephant in the living room. How many more ways can we demonstrate that "trickle-down" economics are a parlor game, and Bush 1 had it right when he called it "voodoo economics."
Go look at middle class incomes since 1980--losing traction while the wealthy continue to swell their bank accts, and w/ the terror of the estate tax being codified, we can put another nail into our meritocracy--just like merry old England--it'll be even more of the birth lottery than it is.
It was reckless, self-serving, and manipulative for the Bush tax cuts in the first place during at least two wars (and the same could be said for Dems who go along w/ them, even now.). I will give the R's props--they're masters at framing the narrative and the ensuing discussion. Even beyond that has been their ability to get working class and middle class voters to vote against their own self-interest (I'm not pointing at you, just a wink at you). And just to underscore the point: how much money could we generate if the Mitt Romneys paid more than 14% in taxes--less than what you and I paid last year. And before folks cry about oppressive tax rates, know that they're at their lowest since the 50s.
Blame? This is calling out failed policies and hoping we don't continue to fall into the trap. A tax code that asks Warren Buffett's secretary to pay a higher percentage in taxes is not the recipe for long-term success.
by 2015-16 we will be paying so much interest on our debt to china... about 300 billion...that they will have their defense budget paid for by U.S. taxpayers. by about 2021 the INTEREST on the debt will be about one trillion a year. these are the kind of numbers we are looking at. the bush tax cuts are about 700 billion... OVER 10 YEARS. 70 billion a year. not something that will make any significant difference.
Not sure where your numbers are coming from, but the Congressional Budget Office (non-partisan) cites the Bush tax cuts dollars and its impact on the deficit. Sounds pretty significant to me--wouldn't going back to the Clinton tax rates, when the economy did pretty well, seem to be an easy fix? I mean before we start asking folks who make less than 20K to pony up more money so that Romney and the like can offshore more of their money and pass it on to their children shouldn't we at least explore policy that generated a budget surplus?
btw, China owns about 8% of our debt (I think), and several other countries actually have higher percentages--Japan and France come to mind. Again, deficits matter but not nearly as you and others make it out. Again, tell me why we don't worry about deficits when Reagan and Bush run up our debt? I'm waiting . . . we had 8 years under Bush and 8 years under Reagan--the size of the government increased and the deficits increased. This isn't blame game; this is to highlight flawed policy that is detrimental to the majority of Americans--you and I included. You know what I want right now? I want my government borrowing MORE money (have you seen interest rates lately?)--it's how we got out of the Great Depression--the government needs to increase demand; the private sector can't/won't do it alone (profits have never, ever been higher yet the economy is still weak--why?)
our politicians have made promises that cannot be kept. not even close. for those under 55.. they can choose to stay with the current program... or a voucher to choose among competing insurers. out of pocket will be means tested. will everyone take a hit. YES. will everyone take a bigger hit if we do nothing YES. will the poor be hurt the most if we do nothing... absolutely. but it is time for us to put on our big boy pants . i would welcome a written plan from the left to compare/contrast to the ryan budget. i am sure that there will be aspects of their plan..... if it is ever written.. that will be helpful in the debate. i am not advocating the ryan budget....
If nothing else happens (including taking money from it for other expenditures), Social Security is fully solvent until 2036. Yes, we need make changes but frankly it's silly at best to tell the custodian at the local school he can't retire until he's 70 b/c we want Romney/Buffet paying 14% in taxes. What's the cap for SS anyway? 100K, I believe--might that not be a place to start? And both parties continue to kick the can down the road, partly b/c taxes have becomes such a dirty word--the conversation neither party is willing to have w/ Americans is our need to increase revenue; this is so obvious that I'm not sure why it's not part of the debate. Go back and look at some of the negotiations that Reagan had regarding the deficit--he understood the need to increase revenue and actually raised taxes on Americans at least 7 times during his presidency--again, why is this not part of our current discussion? (start the blame w/ the Grover Norquist-types) And the comparison is available here:
*(I couldn't find the one chart that I saw that showed any current Republican candidate budget plan would actually increase the deficit over Obama's plan--but here are some other tidbits. btw, this isn't partisanship--I might vote for Jill Stein. I'm simply pointing out that the R's aren't offering a solution to your primary concern)
*from Ezra Klein on the Rachel Maddow Show on Feb. 13, 2012. (I formatted this a bit to aid reading) Right now, taxes are way, way, way low. In 2011, tax revenues were 15.4 percent of GDP.
To give you an idea of how low that is, before the financial crisis, you had to go back to 1950 -- 1950 -- to find a year when taxes were that low. In 1950, there was no Medicare, there was no Medicaid, there wasn`t even a Hawaii as one of the 50 states of the United States.For comparison sake, taxes under Reagan were 18.2 percent of GDP.
So, think about that next time you hear about Obama is taxing the economy to death. Taxes under Obama are lower, at least they have been so far, than they were under Reagan. It`s not even close.Now, taxes are so low right now Obama the Bush tax cuts brought them there, and because of the recession. But as the economy recovers, takes will come back a bit, too.
Budget experts say they`ll get back to 17.9 percent of GDP. That`s if we just keep the Bush tax cuts and let the economy come back. But if that happens our deficits will be huge -- huge. So we have to do something.
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31066137/media-kit/>
But Mitt Romney and President Obama have very, very, very different ideas as to what to do and who should pay for it.Obama`s budget wants to raise taxes on the rich by $1.5 trillion. That means taxes rise to 19.2 percent of GDP.
Romney meanwhile wants to cut taxes further. His plan would extend all of the Bush tax cuts and then further reduce taxes on the rich. Taxes would fall to about 17 percent of GDP.But what`s really interesting in these two plans is who would pay.
The Tax Policy Center is this great group of non-partisan wonks who look at all these policies in way more detail than I even can stand. But every so often, they emerge from their caves and they sort of blink because they
haven`t seen the sunlight forever, and they give us great estimates how much different groups of people would pay under the different plans.And they`ve looked at Obama and Romney`s plans. Turns out very different groups of people would pay.
If you are in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution, in Obama`s plan you`ll pay federal tax rate of 1.8 percent. Under Romney`s plan, you`ll pay almost double that, 3.4 percent. That`s the poorest group.
If you`re in the middle, it`s a lot closer, 15.2 percent under Obama`s plan, 15.6 percent under Romney`s plan. But if you`re in that top 1 percent, as both Romney and Obama are, the difference becomes huge. Under
Obama`s plan, you pay 36.3 percent. Under Romney`s plan, 25.9 percent.
To get that out of percents and into dollars, if you`re in the top 1 percent, under Romney, your taxes will be $160,000 lower than it will be under Obama, $160,000. Tax cuts of that size cost a lot of money, trillions of dollars. And Romney`s promised he won`t pay for that by cutting defense. He`s promised he won`t pay for it by raising taxes elsewhere and his promise to balance the budget. So, you can actually run the numbers.
To make those numbers work, to make the taxes and spending balance out, he will have to cut almost twice as deep in spending as Paul Ryan`s budget does. It means he will have to cut every single domestic program,
including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all of them by 36 percent -- 36 percent.
And you know who relies on domestic programs like those? Senior citizens and the poor. Think all of the seniors voting Republican want a 36 percent cut to Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for Romney`s
tax cuts for the wealthy? I sort of doubt it.
*this one analyzes Ryan's budget: <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/paul-ryans-budget-should-the-poor-pay-for-deficit-reduction/2011/08/25/gIQAxawWPS_blog.html>
*from Mike Lofgren, retired Republican Congressional staffer (28 yrs): The Republican hopefuls who want to relieve Obama of his job would not simply add two or three trillion dollars of deficits over the next decade, as the president has proposed to do. Mitt Romney, who touts his business acumen as a prime qualification to be president, makes Obama appear as tight-fisted as Grover Cleveland by comparison. Romney's initial tax plan<http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/upload/description-Romney-plan.pdf> was as follows: those making more than $1 million a year would receive an average federal income tax cut of $145,000 by 2015. This scheme would increase deficits by about $180 billion annually by 2015, according to the Tax Policy Center. But apparently that was not enough to satisfy his contributors, so at the end of February 2012, Romney added a 20 percent cut in all income tax rates and a repeal of the AMT. The Center estimated<http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?Docid=3298> that the 20 percent rate cut would add an additional $150 billion to the deficit in 2015 alone. The policy group did not calculate a ten-year estimate, but it is safe to say that Romney's new and improved boondoggle would add about $3 trillion over ten years on top of Obama's pre-existing plan to increase the deficit by $2.7 trillion.
*also from same policy guy who wrote the excerpt below: <http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/04/05/3-conservative-myths-about-government>
*from US News: The Ryan budget aspires to cut the budget deficit (as a share of the economy) from 8.7 percent of Gross Domestic Product, known as GDP, last year to 1.2 percent in 2022. That's the same 2022 deficit that the Congressional Budget Office estimates we would reach anyway if we made no significant legislative changes affecting the budget for the next 10 years (see office's "baseline" projections here<http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/March2012Baseline.pdf>).
we have incredible fiscal problems at the city-state level also that are about to blow up. smart people disagree about whether tax cuts have been good/bad. but there is another record in history to consider......the record of govt centered economys. zero successes. there are two sides on the coin. there is one question the right asks the left constantly...... but the left never gives a firm answer. i believe you will.. so i will ask you. considering state local and federal taxes... at what percentage does it become immoral. i say not a dime over 50% in state local and federal combined.
Yeah, the big problems are coming from the shift in the tax burden--the economy did quite well from the late 1940s through the early/mid '70s with much higher tax rates than we're paying now. The problem is that the cut in federal income tax (which is a progressive tax) is forcing local/states to go to increasing our sales tax, for example, which is a regressive tax. You and I paying more in sales tax is a bigger slice of our pie than Romney/Buffet paying the same sales tax.
And, yes, smart people debate the merits of tax cuts but most economists cut through the politics and tell we can't fix it w/out bumping up the revenues. Again, even Reagan did this. I'm not sure what the magic number is, but I know if Romney/Buffet are paying only 14% in federal taxes that money is ultimately coming from you and me. When the economy did well, generally, for 30+ years, our tax rates were higher than they are now. So, it's not the "taxes kill the economy" argument can really stand up to scrutiny. The other thing to keep in mind: many in Ohio are now paying over 25% of their income for healthcare--why are we paying the middlemen (the insurance companies)? Other countries are smarter and more upfront about this and this is why they have universal healthcare--everyone pays their fair share. Imagine how stimulative it would be to the economy if small businesses didn't have to pay for helathcare--wow, how many people could they hire then? And imagine the buying power we would have if everyone chips in--Medicare for all makes a lot of sense.
I think I've gone on entirely too long--thanks for listening. As a former Republican who voted for George W. Bush in 2000, I would encourage you to challenge your party, your assumptions--I try to do this. For a while, I was entrenched entirely in Democrats good, Republicans bad but that's not overly fruitful either. Both parties are not very responsive to their constituents and both serve corporate needs over our own. Having said that, I don't recognize this Republican party at all. This is an ugly, new creation. And with all due respect, Tim, I'm not sure how folks from the middle can even get behind their self-serving and destructive policies. I don't say this to be inflammatory or to not value your opinion/position, but simply as someone looking at what the party in general is advocating, whether it be budgetary or social policy--it's a far cry from Eisenhower and even Reagan.
I think the Occupy Movement is on the right track and am hopeful that we can get our government back from the corporations. Until then, we're both probably screwed.
good talking to you--
peace
Eric
________________________________
i don't feel this is partisan. i am unconcerned about how we got here. that is a recipe for disaster. have we not had enough of the blame game? by 2015-16 we will be paying so much interest on our debt to china... about 300 billion...that they will have their defense budget paid for by U.S. taxpayers. by about 2021 the INTEREST on the debt will be about one trillion a year. these are the kind of numbers we are looking at. the bush tax cuts are about 700 billion... OVER 10 YEARS. 70 billion a year. not something that will make any significant difference. our politicians have made promises that cannot be kept. not even close. for those under 55.. they can choose to stay with the current program... or a voucher to choose among competing insurers. out of pocket will be means tested. will everyone take a hit. YES. will everyone take a bigger hit if we do nothing YES. will the poor be hurt the most if we do nothing... absolutely. but it is time for us to put on our big boy pants . i would welcome a written plan from the left to compare/contrast to the ryan budget. i am sure that there will be aspects of their plan..... if it is ever written.. that will be helpful in the debate. i am not advocating the ryan budget.... i am open to all suggestions. we have incredible fiscal problems at the city-state level also that are about to blow up. smart people disagree about whether tax cuts have been good/bad. but there is another record in history to consider......the record of govt centered economys. zero successes. there are two sides on the coin. there is one question the right asks the left constantly...... but the left never gives a firm answer. i believe you will.. so i will ask you. considering state local and federal taxes... at what percentage does it become immoral. i say not a dime over 50% in state local and federal combined. watched the end of that tribe game last nite. rough. but masterson looked great. best wishes tim
________________________________
Dear, Mr. Met.
We should really meet over on my blog (it was help build my content) :-)
But, since you asked . . . yes, that's the basic difference between Republicans and Democrats--how to "fix" the economy--we each have our standard approaches. However, since we've had about 10 years of tax cutting as a way to stimulate the economy, I think it's fairly safe to say that it's not working as well as the R's would have us believe (the problem is that Obama, in an effort to be seen as a centrist, has neutered his best progressive plans by implementing/continuing tax cuts rather than actual stimulative efforts; i.e., spending by the Fed government.
Before I forget, you should read my post from tonight--it addresses this topic more thoroughly. But, let me say this--
1. since when did deficits become the boogy man? They're not good, by any means, but they're most definitely not the biggest problem we face economically. (ironically, deficits grew under Reagan and Bush--and they weren't a big deal. But now we have a Democrat in the WH and it's "the sky is falling"). Now, this, of course, doesn't mean we ignore it but we ensure its full negative impact if we cut gov spending (again, see tonight's post for explanation).
2. fixes, you ask? do nothing . . . allow the Bush tax cuts to expire; half the deficit goes away. The other half? stop fighting our wars--voila, deficit nearly gone, and we didn't have to blame workers who serve the public good (firefighters, cops, teachers, et al.).
3. go look at unbiased assessments of the budget plans being offered by the Presidential candidates--you'll never guess whose plan does the best . . . btw, anybody who makes under 250,000 shouldn't touch that plan being offered up by Paul Ryan (coupons for Medicare? come on, Man).
we'll talk more soon--here's to the Mets and Tribe meeting in Oct.
peace
Eric
________________________________
i had a question regarding your mar 31st blog. as i mentioned before... i feel the poor/infirm will be devastated if we do not stop with these trillion dollar deficits. others will be hurt also... but have more resources to cushion the blow. you may not believe this... but the right does not want to do anything but help the poor. they just disagree with the remedies of the left. do you have ideas on deficit reduction... or does it just not matter. it matters to me because i do care and want to avoid a meltdown.... which.. again.... will devastate the poor disproportionately. respectfully mr.met
________________________________
I'm w/ ya, Brother--I think there is a simple solution (but oh so hard to implement): money in politics, get rid of it. Right now we're not being represented, the corporations are and we the rabble are really just flotsam right now, for the most part.
And I'm w/ you specifically on the hypocrisy--if you're going to bang on Bush for wireless wire-tapping, then you better bang on Obama for Pvt. Manning, black sites, drones, and the assassination of a US citizen w/out trial (just to name a few).
good hearing from you--
be well
Eric
________________________________
the funny thing about our present polarized politics is how each side gets dramatic about about the part of the issue that they want to address and purposely ignore the part of the issue that does not fit their template. it is really fun to watch. that is the fun for me in politics. the kind of hypocracy that is slightly submerged. you won't see it if you are not informed. that is what they count on.... and with people so quick to cast aspersions on the other side... it goes mostly unnoticed by the great unwashed. but both sides... even the fire-breathers love america. which makes everything even more heartbreaking. because i fear we are in very serious trouble on many fronts. and i am starting to lose faith in whether we will be able to fix things. i wish we could have a referendum on firing every senator and congressperson and starting anew with new people who would need to pledge to cooperate/compromise. it would be interesting to see if it would pass. but today is opening day!!!! as i send this the mets are tied for 1st place!!!!! peace tw
________________________________
"The needs of the poor take priority over the desires of the rich; the rights of workers over the maximization of profits; the preservation of the environment over uncontrolled industrial expansion; production to meet social needs over production for military purposes." Pope John Paul II
________________________________
that is the first blog i have ever read. thanks, Tim--I appreciate that. you seem dedicated to your positions.. a great american tradition. do you know any informed conservatives that you have a friendly exchange with? it is always best to test your views vs. the opposing view.... it can confirm your view... or make you reconsider. yeah, I like give/take as much as the next guy and I think this is a good idea--USA Today carries Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel in this format/approach--truth be told, I think it's more of a secondary purpose of the blog--my main goal is to talk to people above/around mainstream media, who no longer report news but sensationalize and ultimately distort truth and fact--we saw how nearly all media mishandled the Iraq War yet they're doing it again w/ Iran. It's sorta--yeah, this is what is being said but let me tell you what it really means--although I am much more humble than that sounds. i like the cambridge debate forum.. roberts rules of order and all. i saw a great one from the late christopher hitchens vs ramesh ponneru.. name misspelled... on religion. both men breathtakingly smart. although i am christian.. i try to view intellectual argument with an open mind. i thought ramesh pinned him. unfortunately for me... i have tried this with a couple of close friends thinking it would go fine. i ended up being sadly mistaken. you're right--most people don't want truth--they want media,et al to confirm or re-affirm what they already believe; friends of mine won't even watch Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert b/c of their "politics" i have a pretty easy going attitude about it. to me it is like a met fan teasing a yankee fan. all in good fun. the liberals i have tried to engage intellectually have resorted to saying things with the intent of being hurtful. I really tried to guard against this--its' the old adage abut religion and politics, right? don't discuss them w/ family or friends--no upside (haha). oh well.. lessons learned. but i have to remind you of my fear.... that i get to heaven and find out that everything i was certain of was incorrect. i think it is good to consider. keeps one humble. good luck with your blog!! i enjoyed reading it. thanks again for reading (and writing)--be well, Eric PS--I've put up a few more posts over the weekend . . . feel free to chime in.
tim
No comments:
Post a Comment