Democrats versus Republicans

[sailaway21]

sck5,
So you are in favor of raising social security witholdings?

We've had the discussion on how cutting taxes actually increases revenue received to the government. You're apparently unmoved by that notion. That's ok by me. I can understand where you're at on that one. How about this thought: the government is going to spend every dollar we send them, and more. We have no evidence to the contrary. The federal deficit shrank under Clinton not because of tax increases, or even reduced spending. The former happened, the latter did not. The only way to reduce government spending is to starve the government of revenues. So forget about new taxes, they'll only spend them on something new, and let's focus on reducing spending. No new spending and let's start reducing the automatic spending increases built into the entitlement programs.

[sck5]

sailaway

I dont remember saying anything about social security. My own opinion is that we should leave the system as it is. We have much more immediate problems than what may or may not happen to SS in 3 or 4 decades. As for what happened under Clinton you are correct as far as I remember - Taxes were raised in 93 shortly after he got in and spending continued more or less on its previous upward trend. The deficit disappeared because growth was far higher than anyone had projected which together with the higher tax rates brought in more money than they anticipated. They certainly didnt think the deficit would go away in the beginning or they would have started taking credit for it back then. However, dont you think that this is evidence to the contrary as far as your theory of tax cuts and growth? That is to say, they raised taxes and then the economy grew like gangbusters. Now I wouldnt go so far as to say that the tax increase was the reason for the growth but it sure seems pretty clear that the tax increase didnt PREVENT it either. In fact, one could make an argument that investors LIKE to see a government that keeps its books in order.

And that is my point. The current government is NOT keeping its books in order. Those who thought that starving the beast of tax revenue would force it to cut spending seem not to have been correct. There really is no substitute for some political spine - That is, for politicians who will step up and say what ought to be cut and then to DO IT. Failing that they ought to raise the money to pay for it. Anything else is dishonest and bad for our country - What we have now is worst of both worlds - They are increasing spending faster than ever and cutting taxes at the same time!! This cant go on forever and the steep drop in the dollar vis a vis the euro is proof that the investors both here and there know it cant go on forever.

Reasonable people can differ on how much spending is the right amount. But we all ought to be able to be adult enough to agree that we should pay our own bills and not stick our kids with them. You are right that if the politicians get tax revenue they will spend it. Unfortunately they will spend the money even if they DONT get the revenue. There is no cure for this but to go directly at the problem - If spending is too high then that is what needs to be cut because they dont seem to get the hint when taxes are cut that they should modify their spending accordingly.

[artbyjody]

sck - That is kinda a poor example (Clinton raising taxes). The only reason that there was growth - was the Tech Bubble period - boom of internet companies and a bunch of folks spending obnoxious amounts of money thinking that if they get to IPO then - they cash out...and of course everyone around was charging top dollar because they could and had to be done to be real time competitive...As history shown us - that bubble didn't last too terribly long...There is no such resurgence of anything at this time...Therefore raising taxes would not stimulate growth...

[sck5]

While we are on the subject of spending, it is also worth saying that not all spending is created equal. We tend to slip into a habit (me too) of talking as if all spending is equal in terms of its effects. It isnt. I am not so bothered when the spending is on actual investments that will yield a return later on. For example, if we build a road or a port or improve education we are going to get the money back later in higher productivity. What is more troubling is spending that is just a giveaway for consumption purposes and doesnt raise our physical or human capital. I also would put into the non productive category some of the subsidies they have been handing out lately to companies which are already majorly profitable and dont need the money to do what they are doing. So if you ask me where to start cutting, there are lots of candidates but a first consideration should be to protect spending that is investment and to consider cutting spending that is just rearranging consumption from whoever got taxed to whoever got lucky.

[sck5]

jody

Dont get me wrong. I am not saying to raise taxes right now - Hell, we are heading into a recession. What I am saying is that it is irresponsible for the government to ignore the imbalances it is creating by pretending that cutting taxes will somehow magically result in cutting spending. My opinion is that this is just a spineless politician's easy out - Voters love to hear about tax cuts but hate to hear about spending cuts. So politicians tell them what they want to hear and the result is a huge deficit and declining dollar. They need to man up and start telling the truth - There is no magic in cutting taxes. And a great deal of harm if spending isnt taken care of at the same time.

As I have said above, it is a matter of choice how big government ought to be and some countries pick big (e.g. Europe) and others smaller (e.g. us). What ought not be a matter of choice is to pay the bills for our own choices, whatever they are.

[artbyjody]

Interesting enough this is even bigger discussion so for you political folks I present yet another useless link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com

sck - I agree with you - Reagan was very unpopular in some circles (such as the military) and the cutting back of military bases and cutting the fat out of other government organizations... yet economically only moderate growth was really seen...I believe he also raised taxes as well...(much of Clinton's political doctrine was adapted from the "Reaganomics handbook"...

What seems to go out mind of most is the amount of money we are borrowing to finance our "holding Iraq", and as the economy downturns even more money will be borrowed as to pay for all the programs to support those unable to find jobs etc...

But if there has been one thing Bush has not done - is cut the fat.... personally I am not seeing where lowering taxes does to much but then again raising them doesn't make much sense either. Since costs of fuels etc are up and the fed govt now gets a higher percentage due to the inflation of prices...maybe that is the only reason this is being done?

[sck5]

chuckles

I didnt see your last post until just now. Hey, isnt it possible we are both grownups and have both read books but we just disagree? sheesh. maybe we both need to get out on the water - we are now at about the farthest point from sailing weather we can possibly be in the annual cycle.

I guess you believe what you have said and I believe what I think I see - They cut taxes in 2001 and now we have a huge deficit. I dont think I am insane for thinking there is a connection or that this is potentially trouble. But I am not going to snark on you for disagreeing. Sometimes one party wins and sometimes the other one does. We can see who seems to have a better outcome and then vote for that one if we like. But I have lived in other countries and the most important thing we have here that too many of them dont is that we all agree to respect each other and abide by the results that the system gives us - because we are free to disagree and try to convince each other - And hey, it looks like there might be a pretty clear choice in the next election dont you think? The repubs nominated a respectable guy and the dems seem about to nominate somebody who clearly represents a different and more liberal point of view on just about everything (whether or not they are all personally likable which would be a whole other can of worms)

its what i like to see. a clear choice from people who are more clear than politicians usually are about what they want to do.

[sailaway21]

sck5,
THAT'S the spending you want? I guess we now know why it's so tough to cut spending. (g) How about we let the states keep the federal gas tax and the states can build their own damn roads. I'm sure glad you didn't mention bridges in there, cause we're building one in Alaska you may have heard about. Ports? Let private industry and the states build ports.

And then the coup de grace for return on investment; education. I, and no doubt Rag's, would be most interested in absolutely any positive influence federal spending has had on education. No Subsidy Left on the Table has been a boondoggle on what rightfully should be a local issue. We already spend more per student than any country in the world. Our teachers make the equivalent of a master plumber, for a part time job. (and the plumber has to guaruntee his work) And this is an investment? Aren't investments supposed to show a positive rate of return?

How do you propose to get government spending down if you're advancing the notion of the government spending on things that are none of it's business?

You want to know what IS equal spending by the government? Defense spending. The defense department's budget protects each and every one of us equally in such a way that I defy anyone to find an equivalent federal program that does the same. I do guess you could say the post office but then we'd say it serves us equally badly.

[sailaway21]

It's late jody, but you'll need to defend your last post, specifically about Reagan not being militarily popular and the "modest" growth of the economy. Were I you I'd start boning up on the term "stagflation". And, btw, the military are the one's who recommended the base closings. Base closings always originate with the military's requests-the opposition comes from the 535 elected defense strategists who have "essential" bases in their districts.

Most of Clinton's agenda consisted of ideas from the Republican congress-not Reagan. Emphatically not Reagan. Reagan built the 600 ship Navy. clinton dismantled it and spent the "peace dividend". A peacedividend that might have come in handy in a larger armed forces post 9/11. Which brings us to that most vexing of questions, especially to Bill Clinton, just what DID Bill Clinton do? Legacy? What legacy? You're seeing the Clinton legacy right now; Hillary. And that's about all there is.

[uspirate]

some chick called the other night stating she was from the democratic party asking me who i was in favor of. so i said Fu** you, and hung up