Democrats versus Republicans

[US27inKS]

Cutting taxes while spending like there is no tomorrow is what the modern republican party stands for.

I wish I could say I disagree with you. I think the rank and file republicans and right leaning independents like me believe that the government doesn't have a revenue problem, but does have a spending problem. If we reduced the spending down to what the federal govt should be spending money on, we could have tax cuts and a budget surplus. At least the republicans talk about reducing federal spending, and make all of us who wish for a smaller government happy.

The problem is politics. It doesn't matter who is in charge, there's always politics. Each side wants their own pet projects pushed through, so it becomes not give and take, but give and give. As in, I'll sign off on your war budget if you'll let me fund xyz to make my political contributors happy. The next thing you know we've got a several hundred billion dollar deficit, and no one is willing to give up his or her pet project. God forbid they do the right thing, after all there's fund raising to do before the next election cycle, and we can't do much fund raising if we don't take care of our political contributors. The whole process is sickening.

[drynoc]

When Reagan took office, the economy was already in the tank, thanks to the Congress and Nixon/Ford/Carter. The first thing he did was de-regulate the price of gas. He then got a Democratic Congress to pass a cut in the tax rate (as opposed to a one time rebate, which is worthless). During his first two years in office, the economy bottomed out at nearly 10% unemployment. Then the growth kicked in, and continued unabated until late in the first Bush term. Meanwhile, tax revenue soared, thanks to the tax cut (John Kennedy had already proved this would happen). But, and Reagan is partly to blame for this, spending also soared. Remember, all spending originates in the Congress. The President has nothing to do with originating spending bills. There was a brief slow down late in the Bush term, which did not last long, and which was already over (growth had kicked in again) prior to the Clinton tax increase. Thanks in part to Clinton, the GOP took over both houses of the Congress in 1994, and for a short while reeled in the spending, and got Clinton to sign both NAFTA and the welfare reform bill, both of which had salutary effects on the economy. Unfortunately, neither Bush II or the GOP made any effort to control spending, and we are once again heavily in debt. Building roads and schools will not bring us out of the recession - FDR tried that, and it didn't work. The only jobs that matter are those that are created by the private economy with funds voluntarily provided for that purpose. If I give a dollar to Wal-Mart and they use it to make more money for themselves, bravo. It's all voluntary, and everyone wins, and the money goes where the market place said that it should. If the government takes my money and builds a school or a road with it, nothing is gained. I'm already taxed for those purposes, and the funds are steered away from the market where the best decisions are made. Schools and roads are the Democratic party paradigms to be used to shame people into doing what they want. Who could be against schools and roads? But more is not necessarily better. Local governments pull the same trick: whenever they are faced with budget difficulties, they always threaten to lay off police and firemen.

[PBzeer]

There's a simple reason that spending increases. It's that the federal government has inserted itself into too much of what should be state level spending. Much of which is only constitutional due to the bastardization of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Now, we have a president who's stated goal is to expand government, with the resulting need for ever more money from the taxpayers. Conservatives aren't anti-tax, as they are often portrayed, but against excessive taxes that fund functions that aren't the province of the federal government. We have gone from a bottom up tax system, to a top down one.

To me, education is a prime example. As the level of federal dollars has increased, the level of achievement has steadily decreased. The solution, to Washington is, spend more. There isn't a federal social program that doesn't cite the mantra of "we didn't spend enough", as the reason for it's lack of success.

Fiscal responsibility starts at the local level, not the federal, and taxes should reflect that. I'd much prefer higher local and state taxes, over higher federal ones.

[wind_magic]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Much of which is only constitutional due to the bastardization of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Could you expand on this point PBz, I am not very familiar with this.

Thanks!

[PBzeer]

Some quotes:

That is, absurdly, legislation that Congress passed to protect the constitutional rights to privacy, to equal protection, and to freedom of religion may survive or fail depending on whether it can be justified as a regulation of interstate commerce.

According to the Tenth Amendment, the government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the states, or to the people (and even the states cannot alienate some of these). The Commerce Clause is one of the Article 1 Section 8 powers specifically delegated to Congress and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal legislative power.

Using education again. There is no constitutional mandate for federal funds for education, ie: it is not specifically stated. It is by the use of the Commerce Clause that it is allowed.

Sway can probably explain it much better, and in more detail

[wind_magic]

1.75 Trillion $us ... BOO-YAH!!!

Source: Obama forecasts 1.75 trillion deficit this year

Is that 1% of GDP ? No. 2% ? No. Try 12.3% of GDP baby, if you're going to spend money, SPEND IT LIKE YOU MEAN IT!

[PBzeer]

And don't forget, that's if everything works perfectly. Care to bet on the chances of that?

[danjarch]

Windy the use of the interstate commerce law goes like this. Local schools buy goods like books, buses, and desk from other states, therefore we can regulate what is allowed in schools. Therefore schools can be forced to accept stipulations in exchange for funds. Therefore, if you want your money back you have to agree to give free lunches, and follow the dietary guide put out by the fed, even if this program makes the school spend from it's own budget to keep the program going. Failure to keep this program going doesn't just risk the money for this program or that school, but every dollar in federal funding at all schools in the state.

A better example would be the libruary in Winter Park Fl. Big money city, in fact so many people lived off of capital gains that the city fell below the poverty line in earned income. So the fed required the city of Winter Park to accept 5 million and build a new libuary. Winter park had just spent 7 million to build a new libuary though. Refusal to accept and build a new libuary would have cost the city any and all other federal funding, including schools, roads, parks, and grants. Rollins college, a expensive private collage got a brand new $7 million libuary for free. This was all done under the interstate commerce law. With out that the fed would't have the constitutional authority to give your money to Winter park, and you could sue to stop them.

[wind_magic]

One thing I would like someone to clear up - the 15 billion $us for green energy, what is that actually going to buy ? I mean I've heard the announcements and all, green collar jobs, all that, but when it gets right down to nuts and bolts, what is the money actually going to be spent on ?

We already use solar panels where it is economically feasible to use them, which is in cabins out in the middle of nowhere, sailboats, utility and safety stations that are far away from power (interstate 911 telephones, etc), and all of that kind of thing, so where else would we put them ? They aren't a good investment where electrical power is available because they cost too much to make, and they require huge amounts of electricity to build.

We already build wind farms where it is economically feasible to use them, there are only so many places in the country where wind power generates enough money to make it worth it. You have to have transmission lines close enough to the sites to carry the power, which isn't always reasonable when you are talking about a hillside next to a mountain range, and the return on investment if you were to build the transmission lines might never actually make money. If it were economically feasible to build wind farms, we'd be building them, utility companies aren't stupid, they're perfectly willing to pony up money if they know they're going to make it back with a profit 20 years from now.

Are we talking nuclear plants, is the money going to build reactors ? I haven't heard anyone say that was what the money would be spent on. I'd be surprised if it went to that. Maybe we are going to spend some of it on finally building a site for spent fuel rods ? Or reclaiming rods ? They do that in France, reclaim spent rods and reuse them, mostly to cut down on the amount of waste, it's kind of like crushing trash to get it to fit in a smaller area.

Geothermal, ocean tides ?

I just don't understand what the money will really be used for when it gets right down to it. What is the government going to do that we aren't already doing. We could use some better battery technology for hybrids and electric cars, but industry is already working on that, does the government think it's going to be able to pull off some technological miracle that the engineers at Sony, Matsushita, etc, haven't been able to do yet ? When did the government suddenly develop all of this expertise in research and development, project management, etc ?

Anybody know the details on this ?

[danjarch]

There going to extend the tax credits for solar and wind, creating the same formula that existed last year where if X investment produces Y output costing Z per watt isn't feasable, then X+Xg produces Y+Yg costs Z-Xg per watt makes it feasable. In the mean time the increased costs are hidden so instead Z+profit and being done with it your going to pay Z+profit+Xg in taxes.