Patterico's Pontifications

4/15/2011

Poll: Spending Cuts Plus Tax Increases, or Status Quo?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:26 am



Lurkers, please participate!

I want to make this as clean as possible, so I will save my thoughts and commentary for after the poll. Please answer the following question. You may consider it a false choice — in fact, it probably is! — but pretend someone is holding a gun to your head and you must make the choice. Just because I’m curious about the results.

To make things concrete: in this poll question, when you read “spending cuts” interpret that as: spending cuts of the sort proposed by Paul Ryan. When you read “new taxes” interpret that as: tax levels reverting to where they were under President Clinton.

Also assume that any law would be written to tie the higher taxes to the spending cuts — in other words, if any of the cuts are repealed or undone, the tax increases are automatically repealed.

Now to the question:

If you were absolutely forced to choose between the following, which would you choose?
The status quo
Spending cuts (Paul Ryan’s plan), coupled with tax increases (return to levels under Bill Clinton)
  
pollcode.com free polls

Please answer the question BEFORE reading any further.

Naturally, I do not ask this question to suggest that we should have new taxes.

Conservatives like myself think the budget should be balanced by controlling spending and bringing government more in line with the vision of our Founders.

Leftists don’t really care whether the budget is balanced, but they pretend to by proposing higher taxes on the rich — which cannot possibly balance the budget no matter how confiscatory they are.

Paul Ryan’s plan may not be perfect — it takes far too long to balance the budget — but it’s a start.

I ask the question because I know that conservatives hate both the status quo and tax increases. What I am curious to know is: which bothers people more? I think I know the answer, but maybe I’ll be surprised.

Finally: I am hopeful this will spark a spirited discussion. Towards that end, please comment here and not at the poll results page.

115 Responses to “Poll: Spending Cuts Plus Tax Increases, or Status Quo?”

  1. I selected “status quo” to eventually force a halt in government growth. Because it certainly cannot go on for much longer.

    Jeff Crump (f9f615)

  2. Two wrongs don’t make a right. All this spending is a very bad thing, but taxes are already way too high, and adding to them is another very bad thing. The government simply has no right to take so much away from people, especially those who are already paying way more than their fair share of the state’s expenses.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  3. I’d prefer a complete fix as a result of an economic failure rather than relying on half measures that never reach the target. It would be a lot of pain, but people would remember the lesson for generations.

    Jeff Crump (f9f615)

  4. In moments of cynical depression, I want the status quo, so the system will collapse, teaching everyone a lesson that won’t soon be forgotten… damn the consequences!

    But I’m too reasonable to actually want that, so anything that cuts the budget to survivable levels and beyond is preferable.

    Spike (4573c4)

  5. I’m 52 and my grandparens lived through the Depression. They became savers for the rest of their lives.

    Jeff Crump (f9f615)

  6. I would go back to Clinton tax rates if we could go back to actual spending levels from the day he took office. That is the only way. And then, only until things got under control, and then I would want taxes fixed.

    JD (318f81)

  7. Folks, they’ve been talking about reducing the National Debt and reducing the budget deficits since I started following politics back in 1976.

    Look where we are and ask yourself, seriously, Will they ever collectively have the stones to make it happen unless there is some catastrophe? I personally don’t think so.

    Jeff Crump (f9f615)

  8. JD, isn’t it amazing that we would be happy with those spending levels? I was so unhappy with them I voted for Perot.

    Here is your real nightmare: you and me, in 20 years, wishing we could revert to Obama spending levels.

    Jeff Crump is right. We are screwed.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  9. well, not to go all clinton on you, but… what is the status quo option?

    for instance, does it mean NOT raising the debt ceiling?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  10. The only reason that I am pessimistic is that the professional politicians of both parties are only interested in their personal fortunes; political and financial.

    They enjoy the trappings of wealth and power without the downsides, which is paying taxes on their junkets and perks.

    If it were possible to make being on office holder financially painful, such that already being wealthy would not be an advantage, it would probably bring forth one or two term candidates who are out for the country and not themselves.

    Jeff Crump (f9f615)

  11. Does the “status quo option” mean repealing the Bush tax cuts when they become due (i.e. not extending them again, but letting them expire)?

    Kman (5576bf)

  12. Status qui means status quo. Bush tax cuts in place. Constant raising of the debt ceiling. Crushing deficits and unsustainable entitlement payments.

    Patterico (9eda2c)

  13. Financial collapse always results in a totalitarian government. (e.g. France, after the revolution, Germany in the 30s, China in 49, (not that the Chang family was much better than Mao)

    So if you vote for the status quo financial collapse and a totalitarian government is the end result. It may have the trappings of a constitutional republic but it will not be. (Hell Rome kept the trappings of the republic until it collapsed)

    NotaYank (3f87b1)

  14. The status quo is simply unsustainable. I support a single bracket tax system with no deductions or personal exemptions, but chances of that passing are slim to none. Of course, since the status quo leads to economic collapse followed by revolution–

    BarSinister (a9e7f6)

  15. “Also assume … if any of the cuts are repealed or undone, the tax increases are automatically repealed.”

    With this provision, it is certain that the tax increases would be repealed.

    Perhaps this is a way to get enough “D” votes in the senate to enact the cuts.

    donb (c6dd48)

  16. The reason I ask is because there’s some talk about a “do nothing” plan to get rid of much of the deficit. Meaning that Congress literally do nothing: they don’t mess with Obamacare, they let the Bush tax cuts expire when they are set to expire, etc:

    The overarching principle of the Do-Nothing Plan is this: Leave everything as is. Current law stands, and spending and revenue levels continue according to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline projections. Everyone walks away. Paul Ryan goes fishing. Sen. Harry Reid kicks back with a ginger ale. The rest of Congress gets back to bickering about mammograms. Miraculously, the budget just balances itself, in about a decade.

    Interesting read.

    Kman (5576bf)

  17. Patterico – notice how kmart is only interested in raising taxes. None of the others play into his calculus.

    JD (318f81)

  18. Financial collapse always results in a totalitarian government.

    That is not a foregone conclusion. That didn’t happen after Black Thursday the start of the 1929 stock market crash. And ours is an armed republic, re: 2nd amendment.

    Jeff Crump (f9f615)

  19. Patrick,
    If you voted for Perot (???) does that mean you support the NEW Perot, Trump? Or did you learn anything? (Sorry for the snark but that just floored me… But PLEASE tell me you only voted for him once!)

    Dave in OC (d1d92b)

  20. Also assume that any law would be written to tie the higher taxes to the spending cuts — in other words, if any of the cuts are repealed or undone, the tax increases are automatically repealed.

    Pure fantasy. The only way to tie the hands of future lawmakers would be through a constitutional amendment.

    Anon Y. Mous (e43220)

  21. I voted for the cuts/taxes on the premise that anything is better than the status quo.
    I also think that, as a political reality, some tax increases will be in store, even if we are talking about 2013 with a GOP controlled Senate and White House as well as House of Representatives: the cuts will cause too much pain, and the various interest groups involved will force the GOP to knuckle under.

    but taxes are already way too high
    Can you explicate? My taxes, thanks to the Bush tax cuts, for the last few years have been the lowest they’ve ever been.

    kishnevi (510a0a)

  22. The debt’s a crisis level problem. America is capable of weathering it, but it’s critical we avoid it if we can.

    so that makes Patterico’s question a math problem to me. The Clinton tax levels are bad enough that they reduce revenue. But they reduce them less than Ryan’s plan saves, so it’s clear to me this is much better than the status quo.

    I just want to mention, Ryan’s plan does have some tax increase, in the form of eliminating some tax breaks, so I was already supporting a tax increase that affects my family by supporting Ryan’s plan because I know my country has a serious problem.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  23. It has taken me decades to finally accept that the 50% of households who pay no income taxes, the 1/3 of all households who receive a government check for SS, AFDC, unemployment, welfare, and government pensions, and the people who want Obamacare to pay for all their healthcare, do not care about a balanced budget. They want their checks to keep coming, and somebody else to pay those checks.

    Passing more laws, and showing numbers that run the country off an economic cliff haven’t (and won’t) brought about the needed changes.

    But reality will. Maybe this is something Bin Laden and Obama both want: a gelded U.S. with a lower standard of living and diminished influence.

    TimesDisliker (5fe13c)

  24. “but taxes are already way too high”
    Can you explicate? My taxes, thanks to the Bush tax cuts, for the last few years have been the lowest they’ve ever been

    The rate of growth in expenses far exceeds the rate of growth in revenues. The way things are trending, even at taxing 100% of income, expenses will still continue to grow. What then?

    Jeff Crump (f9f615)

  25. The rest of Congress gets back to bickering about mammograms. Miraculously, the budget just balances itself, in about a decade.

    The only problem is that this is a lie. Obamacare is not saving money, but rather costing an absurd amount of it. Projections are too optimistic (both in Ryan’s plan and in status quo democrats’) too.

    It’s sad that anyone would believe a lie this radical, but no, the deficit problem is not so minor that it’s just about to go away if we do nothing. That’s just meant to undermine the urgency of kicking democrats out of office for the horrible leadership that has damaged our future.

    Our entitlements are breathtakingly burdensome, and raising taxes from the present level back to Clinton levels is not going to fix it.

    But I guess Kman is opposed to comprimise.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  26. I choose status quo.

    DohBiden (6655ba)

  27. It seems to me that the only way to immediately and drastically cut spending is to not raise the debt limit. To make ends meet, without defaulting, the congress will have to slash outlays to the extent of covering the debt service. That act, in and of its self, may be enough to begin restoring confidence in the long term value of US debt securities.

    Jeff Crump (f9f615)

  28. The rate of growth in expenses far exceeds the rate of growth in revenues. The way things are trending, even at taxing 100% of income, expenses will still continue to grow. What then

    I think everyone here (except Kman) agrees with that. But Milhouse seems to be saying that taxes are already too high, even without reference to spending. So I was asking for clarification of what he thinks.

    To make ends meet, without defaulting, the congress will have to slash outlays to the extent of covering the debt service

    That would require Congress to act with far more responsibility and lack of partisanship than it seems to have. More likely, we default, and everyone in DC points fingers at the other side for letting it happen.

    kishnevi (510a0a)

  29. It seems to me that the only way to immediately and drastically cut spending is to not raise the debt limit.

    The only problem is that Obama consistently tests the limits of what he can get away with. He has brought several constitutional crises that the GOP has allowed him to get away with, in fact.

    So what happens if the debt ceiling is too low for his spending level, Obamacare, etc? He might just keep spending, in violation of the law. He might issue an executive order raising the debt level unilaterally.

    Who is going to stop him?

    Not that I disagree with you. We need to refuse to raise the debt limit. Not raise it ‘with conditions’, but actually refuse to raise it. They said they would fix this last time they raised it, and they will lie that same lie again as long as they can.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  30. Dear Patterico,

    “Leftists don’t really care whether the budget is balanced”

    And how, pray tell, does this distinguish leftists from most everybody else, save those wacky Tea Partiers and the lunatic fringe of libertarians? Does McCain care? Did Bush Jr. or Sr. care? Did our hero, the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan care (remember his monster deficits)? Did Nixon care? I’m not old enough to remember if Eisenhower cared, but somehow I doubt it. Why on earth should leftists care when their right wing “adversaries” don’t care? For the full length of my political memory, liberals and conservatives, alike, have been lining up, cheek by jowl, at the same public trough. At least the leftist rarely make the deeply dishonest pretense of supporting a balanced budget.

    I’ll file this one under “Pot calling kettle black.”

    I think we should all tip our hats to the yeoman’s work being done by Tea Party groups across this country that are working to remove the most egregious Republican sellouts from elective office.

    Yours truly,

    ThOR

    ThOR (94646f)

  31. The only way anything will change is if there is a Constitutional Amendment limiting Congress. Otherwise, we will just get promises of future cuts.

    To put it simply, if we limit Congress’ ability to borrow we limit its ability to spend. Thus, I propose an amendment to make it more difficult to increase the debt limit by the following means:

    1) Increasing the debt limit would require a roll call vote with 60% of the membership of each house as well as the President’s signature;

    2) The maximum amount the debt limit can be increased by in a single authorization is 0.2% of the previous year’s GDP;

    3) Debt limit increases must be standalone. No riders, amendments, etc. can be attached to debt level increases;

    4) No more than three debt limit authorizations may be active or in process at any one time-one to issue bonds against, another already passed waiting to issue bond against, and a third in process (the latter two to ensure continuity of cash flow.)

    5)If two successive votes to increase the debt ceiling fail to pass Congress, then no measure to increase the debt ceiling may be introduced in Congress for ninety days.

    6) The debt ceiling at the time of adoption is defined as 102% of the issued debt at the end of the month of the amendment’s adoption.

    Congress lacks the self discipline to control spending; only a Constitutional amendment will ensure our long term fiscal health.

    MartyH (52fae7)

  32. Why on earth should leftists care when their right wing “adversaries” don’t care?

    That’s a sad way to say things, and I think it’s not fair to the right.

    We did care when Bush ran a deficit. The Porkbusters guys got started when the GOP controlled Congress and the WH. Sorry, I think you just suffer from a bad memory as well as a very unfair comparison.

    Patterico was talking about leftists in general, not merely election leaders. You can’t replace the average GOP voter with Bush or Reagan. You do have a point that the right has failed to elect budget balancers except in the 1990s, when the GOP very nearly balanced the budget (And the democrats quickly took credit the only time they have seriously acted like a balanced budget is important).

    But that is, as you note, a problem of egregious Republican sellouts. So you’re contradicting yourself aggressively. These Republicans can’t be egregiously selling out the right if we don’t take balancing the budget seriously.

    Just look at Kman’s argument or Slate. Their plan to balance the budget is to do nothing, not because that will work, but because it sounds like a cute power play that preserves huge entitlement spending.

    So you tell me, Thor, is balancing the budget more important than social security or progressive taxation or Obamacare? If it is, why do those problems cost us a balanced budget by design?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  33. The status quo doesn’t just mean eventual collapse. It also means we have to watch the politicians pick the carcass of our country to pass out to their campaign contributors. That’s not right.

    No matter what else happens the political class has to be exposed for the charlatans and hucksters they are. So I’m for making politicians squeal: less spending and more taxes = a pissed off electorate. Barney Frank has to cry and beg forgiveness before this is over.

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7)

  34. “but taxes are already way too high”
    Can you explicate? My taxes, thanks to the Bush tax cuts, for the last few years have been the lowest they’ve ever been

    “The lowest they’ve ever been” is still too high. Especially at the higher income levels, who pay so much of the total; as I asked in an earlier thread, what exactly do the Koch brothers get from the government that you and I don’t, that could justify their having to pay so much more than we do?

    I note that in late 18th-century White Russia, under the rule of the Czar, people paid considerably less than 10% of their income in taxes*, and yet that burden was considered onerous.

    * (source: Torah Or page 8d, by R Shneur Zalman of Liadi, written in the late 18th or early 19th century, and first published in 1837)

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  35. Although presented as a non-starter, I’m intrigued by the ‘all of the above’ approach if limited to just 2012. The economy won’t grow sharply and steadily until the Dems are stripped of power (and may not grow fast enough even after that but at least there’s a chance). It’s easy to frame for whichever side chooses it: we want this, the other side wants that, ‘test drive’ all of the above in 2012 and we go to the polls to settle it that November. The higher taxes and lower spending will make Obama have to win with the worse four year economic record in the memory of almost all Americans (figuring around 1920 as the birth year when one might still have strong memories of the Great Depression).

    The only thing that worries me is a probable 3rd party run. If the Republicans run on ‘just spending cuts’ and Dems go ‘just tax increases’ the all of the above camp will be receptive to a 3rd Party run similar to Perot’s.

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7)

  36. Both options were dreadful, but I chose status quo because I can’t support anything that says, “tax increases”.

    Ellen (a13e9f)

  37. I’m with you Ellen. And I thought Status Quo meant things stay the way they are today, not increase in debt ceiling. I didn’t care for either choice.

    PatAZ (d09837)

  38. neither: cut spending by eliminating entire cabinet departments of the federal government, as i listed the other day.

    phase out Social Security as the ponzi scheme it is, and get the federal government out of the health care business too.

    set up a flat tax for all filers, human, corporate, everyone. no exemptions, no write offs, none of the usual sophistry, just the same flat single digit percentage of income for everyone.

    oh yeah, and tell the UN we’re only paying our share of their budget 1/192nd of the bill, so they might wanna think about cutting expenses too.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  39. I voted for spending cuts and return to Clinton-era tax rates. As did … 89% of voters at this time. Wow. Doing something seems infinitely better than kicking the can down the road some more.

    carlitos (00428f)

  40. I picked #2 because I thought “status quo” was continuing to build up debt at the current rate which is thought to be untenable.

    My experience with a libertarian-leaning college student (business major) reveals a basic belief that all policitians will say what they think their supporters want to hear and will end up largely doing “the same things” anyway.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  41. How f*cking selfish have we gotten, that we think of keeping our elders from spending their waning years as Wal-Mart greeters as an undue burden on our precious purses?

    That’s what Social Security is: you work for 45 years, and then you get to stop, and the younger generation will support you, so that they can have a chance at rest after they’ve put in their own 45… but somehow that’s some monstrous aberration, especially if it means (cue ominous music) higher taxes. Gimme a f*cking break. This country allows people to prosper; it makes sense that those same people use some portion of their prosperity to maintain the system that allowed them to prosper in the first place. It makes self-interested sense to maintain a beneficial system – which is the purpose of taxes, and the reason the power to tax is such an obvious Congressional prerogative.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  42. So yeah, cut spending – cut the hell out of it, for all I care. But leave the programs grounded in our best ideals alone. And for goodness sake, get used to the idea of taxes as a legitimate power of government, and get ready to see it exercised more readily, cuz when you’re in a hole this deep decreasing the rate of digging – or even the full cessation of digging – isn’t going to get you out of it.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  43. t taxes are already way too high,

    says the guy who pays less in taxes than either the operation of government needs AND lives in a country with the lowest tax rate in the developed world.

    Seriously, some of you guys and your anti-tax religion should just move to the 3rd world. You demand benefits you refuse to pay for.

    Still, I urge all of you to PLEASE contact your legislators and loudly support the Ryan “plan.” My favorite part is the repeal of the ACA, while keeping the tax increases. It’s a great plan

    timb (449046)

  44. Sigh… I know most (emphasis on “most”) of you guys aren’t intent on throwing old people out in the cold or anything like that. It’s just a frustrating fantasy, that we can somehow do away with taxes and still run a functioning first-world country of 310 million people.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  45. How f*cking selfish have we gotten, that we think of keeping our elders from spending their waning years as Wal-Mart greeters as an undue burden on our precious purses?

    Is that fair?

    These wal mart greeters were represented by politicians who raided social security and spent all this money, while dooming my kids to a massive debt level, inflation, instability, etc.

    Old people won’t just stop appearing, Leviticus. We need to stay solvent because there will be more demands on entitlements, forever. The Boomers should have paid, collectively, far more taxes in order to prepare the USA to shoulder their heavy burden on entitlements. Instead, they left America bankrupt, and now have their hand out because they wrote themselves an IOU with their children’s checkbooks.

    It is pretty unfair that you say this nation ‘allows people to prosper’. I don’t owe the USA for my prosperity, and the USA didn’t create success. The government is a necessary component of a healthy country, but you’ve got it backwards, as the more government we get, the less prosperity we’re left with.

    No, it’s not “f*cking selfish” that I think we should greatly trim entitlements so that we can persist, financially. If the baby boomers had wanted their social security, they should have had a Tea Party in 1976 and insisted on a balanced budget, as well as bought bonds (rather than sold them) to fund their burden.

    If you care about your family as much as I care about mine, you won’t be relying on the government to take care of them, anyway. You won’t empower the government to steal from your kids, so fund your false sense of charity. You aren’t actually being kind to rob Peter and pay Paul.

    No, what we need is a society where people take care of eachother, rather than a government that manages right and wrong.

    Please understand this comment is intended with respect, even though I think my tone doesn’t reflect that.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  46. It’s just a frustrating fantasy, that we can somehow do away with taxes and still run a functioning first-world country of 310 million people.

    There is no doubt that we will have to pay off the debt, and I think you are fair to note that part of our debt, legally (though certainly not morally) is to boomer entitlements. We have to pay for that.

    With taxes.

    And as timb already noted yesterday, the Ryan plan includes some tax increases. It gets old seeing him come in here to cheer that he thinks this plan is awful enough that he will politically benefit from its endorsement. That’s unpatriotic in the extreme. It’s the Obama model, since Obama admitted he puts politics ahead of the nation’s needs.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  47. 16.The reason I ask is because there’s some talk about a “do nothing” plan to get rid of much of the deficit. Meaning that Congress literally do nothing: they don’t mess with Obamacare, they let the Bush tax cuts expire when they are set to expire, etc

    But that won’t work, unless you’re prepared to argue that the tax rate cuts enacted under Bush are trimming tax revenues by $1.6 trillion annually.

    I’ve said this many times before: changing tax rates will have an almost negligible effect on tax revenues. For the past 60 years, federal tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have remained relatively constant, in a narrow band of 15-20%. People and companies change their behavior when the tax rates change, and the expected revenue generated from a tax increase doesn’t materialize (when revenue does increase, it’s not from tax rates, because the % of GDP is still about the same, it’s just that the GDP has coincidentally increased).

    With our current deficit, the GDP would have to increase by about 50% in order for tax revenues to exceed government spending. And at a GDP growth rate of 3% annually, that would take about 17 years. But government spending won’t hold at current levels for the next 17 years. We won’t even be able to hold the ratio of national debt to GPD constant, much less ever balance the budget.

    So, the plan you refer to cannot work.

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  48. “I don’t owe the USA for my prosperity.”

    – Dustin

    Yeah, you do. In a very fundamental way. There are plenty of dirt-poor countries with citizens living in abject poverty for the very simple reason that they have predatory authoritarian governments who literally loot the public coffers to line their own pockets. You know this as well as I do. So your own prosperity, and mine, depends fundamentally on a Constitution that protects individual rights, crafts a government designed to answer to the people, and promotes due process. It’s not unfair to ask you to pay taxes to maintain such a blessing of a system – particularly when those taxes are completely subject to the legislative process.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  49. Yeah, you do.

    That’s it? That’s your reply?

    No, I don’t. The government is one of many necessary components of a functional society, but it’s ridiculous to claim prosperity derives from a government. This government has gone far beyond the point where it’s limiting prosperity.

    But thanks for dismissing my argument after calling me “f*cking selfish”. The fact is we’re out of money.

    I would happily buy a Ferrari Power Scooter “at little to cost to you if you’re medicare eligible!!!!!!!!” but we are out of money. We can’t rob the next generation to pay the ones that left America bankrupt. It’s not even a choice. We literally can’t, because the money is gone and we will face a much harder crash if we don’t attempt to create a sustainable system.

    But it’s not like we’re calling for an end to entitlements. We’re talking about a phased in modification that makes this whole mess affordable without leaving anyone truly screwed.

    Anyway, you think you’re unselfish, compared to fiscal conservatives, because you’re robbing my grandkids to pay for my grandparents, and I’m calling that irrational.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  50. It is kind of a f@cking dishonest strawman to claim that we want taxes eliminated. Reduction, and not wanting increases, are not the same as eliminating. I don’t expect the hate filled creepy one to understand that, but Leviticus should. We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Period. End of story. There are not enough evil rich people to eat or burn that would fuel getting rid of the debt.

    JD (822109)

  51. I’d prefer a complete fix as a result of an economic failure rather than relying on half measures that never reach the target. It would be a lot of pain, but people would remember the lesson for generations.

    There are people on the left who would agree with you that the result will be complete economic failure. But they aren’t hoping for the same “fix” that you do.

    (And no, I’m not a Glenn Beck fan. I read the essay in The Nation fifteen years ago, and I’ve been watching the strategy unfold. The plausibility of a hypothesis can be judged by its ability to predict.)

    Murgatroyd (fd5fcd)

  52. Or how about this: the part of the government that is ‘fundamental’ to my prosperity is not social welfare.

    Claiming I’m better off than if there was no government at all is a very cheap argument for not restricting social welfare when it’s run to the point of financial collapse. Hell it’s downright insane to say, in the name of “prosperity” that we should collapse our freaking economy, and if we don’t, we’re “f*cking selfish”. No, that’s not really prosperity you’re in support of. It’s bleeding heart robbery. It’s a crude caricature of Robin Hood.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  53. btw, I’m going to have to channel Churchill here. Leviticus is one of the good guys, and I’m glad he’s bringing the argument up, even if it’s wrong. I’m not trying to be rude to him so much as I’m too lazy to soften how I’m responding.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  54. Leviticus at 48 – they have predatory authoritarian governments who literally loot the public coffers to line their own pockets.
    I give you John Kerry, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, etc.

    The Democrats are currently stating that they will maintain the free spoils system for their voters by taking the money from The Rich as long as their voters keep voting for them. How is that different than the third world kleptocracies you are describing?

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  55. We’re cool, Dustin – no worries. No need for kid gloves.

    Yes, we have a spending problem. Yes, we need to reign in Social Security – and military spending. But we also have an anti-tax problem. I have literally seen conservatives argue that taxation is unconstitutional – which is mind-numbingly wrong, but symptomatic of a burgeoning opposition to the government “stealing my money”. And that anti-tax problem is coupled with a fiscal conservatism that only ever wants to cut other peoples’ programs, so that a Midwest farmer can whine about entitlement spending out of one side of his mouth and beg for his subsidy check out of the other.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  56. I voted for the Ryan Plan + tax increases. Everyone earning an income (and welfare checks and Food Stamps are income) should pay into the Treasury.

    Most of America has no skin in the game. Time they accepted responsibility.

    DaveO (391b76)

  57. Leviticus, your reference to a “anti-tax” problem is the kind of strawman argument that I’ve grown tired of hearing from Obama and other Democrats.

    When a majority of GOP congressman sponsor a bill to abolish Federal taxation, then we have an “anti-tax” problem. Until then, its just more of Obama’s bullshit.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  58. “How f*cking selfish have we gotten…”

    Selfish enough not to want to pay your bills.

    You want to retire someday?

    Open a savings account.

    Dave Surls (58a021)

  59. Most of America has no skin in the game. Time they accepted responsibility.

    True, though the poll was for a return to Clinton taxation, which is a little less concentrated on the ‘rich’ than Bush’s were, but leaves so many who benefit from government without paying taxes.

    And Murg, you’re right about Cloward Pivens. At the very least, many have accepted this as a rational for the insane. It’s hard to work out a way out of this mess, so they just accept that if they stubbornly do nothing, that’s some master clever plan to create a welfare state while sticking it to ‘the man’. of course, there actually are some true believers, too.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  60. Raise current tax rates for every citizen to the current top rate. From there after all citizens pay an identical rate.

    Democracy is not five wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

    We should not be promising voters free goodies that will be payed for by that other guy because he is rich.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  61. The Bush tax cuts cut taxes much more for the lower income earners than they did for the rich.

    Many at the very lowest levels stopped paying taxes entirely, rates in the middle were cut by a full third.

    The rich got a ten percent cut.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  62. Murgatroyd:

    “There are people on the left who would agree with you that the result will be complete economic failure.” But they aren’t hoping for the same “fix” that you do.

    I am in no way in favor of the Cloward-Priven strategy in either it means or its goals. What I am in favor of is enforced spending discipline that would be necessitated by leaving the debt limit as it is. Thus in order for the US to avoid default and avoid an even greater calamity, the congress would have to make explicit and hard decisions on what gets funded and to what level.

    Jeff Crump (f9f615)

  63. Not raising the debt limit does not necessarily result in any default. It will require immediate and real cuts, as debt servicing would be first in line to be paid, but the idea that we will simply default also assume that Congress and the President will refuse to actually address spending. Never mind. That kind of is self-refuting. 😉

    JD (9a3313)

  64. How f*cking selfish have we gotten, that we think of keeping our elders from spending their waning years as Wal-Mart greeters as an undue burden on our precious purses?

    If you feel sorry for Granny, and want to help her out, feel free to give her as much as you like. Feel free to set up a charity to help retire all the elderly Walmart greeters, if you like. But what gives you the the f*cking right to stick your hand in my pocket without my permission?

    That’s what Social Security is: you work for 45 years, and then you get to stop, and the younger generation will support you, so that they can have a chance at rest after they’ve put in their own 45

    And you expect me to actually believe that when I retire the system will still be there for me, and be just as generous as the one you expect me to pay for? I don’t believe that, and nor do most young people. So why should I support your Granny, who never did anything for me?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  65. Social Security is a great system.

    The government takes your money by force, never invests a dime of it, holds onto it for 40 years, pockets some of it for themselves, then (if you’re lucky enough to live that long) returns some of what they took from you 40 years ago.

    Yeah, great system. Sign me up.

    Dave Surls (58a021)

  66. says the guy who pays less in taxes than either the operation of government needs

    Nonsense. The operation of government doesn’t need even a third of what it currently consumes.

    AND lives in a country with the lowest tax rate in the developed world. Seriously, some of you guys and your anti-tax religion should just move to the 3rd world.

    Huh? You just admitted that governments in the rest of the world are even more rapacious than ours. So how is moving there a solution?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  67. Have Blue – there you go again, trying to be rational … (grin) …

    Yeah, I know I’m not yet a citizen, but …

    Folks, the “Clinton tax levels” were only the Clinton tax levels for 1993-1994 ! From 1995 on, they were the GOP tax levels, with a small hiccup when Jeffords crossed the aisle … please let us try to get the discussion back to that factual basis – Congress *is* responsible for the Federal Budget except when they choose not to exercise that responsibility – like the Dems in 2010 … if the result matches the wishes of a President – like the Bush Tax Cuts – that *is* by coincidence, and is an exception …

    Alasdair (f37579)

  68. That’s what Social Security is: you work for 45 years, and then you get to stop, and the younger generation will support you, so that they can have a chance at rest after they’ve put in their own 45

    If you view SS as a retirement plan, then I truly do feel sorry for you.

    Why is it that the leftists simply asset that taxes are not hi enough, and ignore that we eat our rich as well as any of our euro-socialist lite buddies, and that eating the rich will not in any way, solve our spending problems.

    JD (9a3313)

  69. I don’t owe the USA for my prosperity.

    Yeah, you do. In a very fundamental way. There are plenty of dirt-poor countries with citizens living in abject poverty for the very simple reason that they have predatory authoritarian governments who literally loot the public coffers to line their own pockets.

    So do I owe the local gang for being so good as not to burn down my house, and my neighbours for not stabbing me, and every passerby for not mugging me? Of course I’d be worse off if they did these things, but I don’t owe them anything for refraining, because they have no right to do them in the first place. They are not the cause of any prosperity I may enjoy; they are merely potential robbers of that prosperity, who are decent people and therefore don’t. The government is less decent than them, but more so than many other governments. That’s like saying the Sicilian mafia is far better than the Ukranian mafia; true, but irrelevant.

    Government can never create prosperity. Its only role is in protecting the prosperous from predators who would rob them of the fruits of their efforts; and for that it’s entitled to be paid its legitimate costs, and no more.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  70. I actually saying this months ago when the issue was 99+ weeks of unemployment vs. rolling back taxes to Clinton levels. My belief was – do both.

    Rolling back to Clinton (not Nixon) levels will be fine econmomically. And it takes away a big talking point.

    Lee Stranahan (708cc3)

  71. Lee – not without rolling back spending to the original levels that Clinton had.

    JD (9a3313)

  72. wow, if we got back to Clinton era spending (alasdair’s accurate objection notwithstanding) that would be treated like an apocalypse by democrats today.

    It makes me wonder why the GOP doesn’t just pass a budget as similar to the 1998 budget as possible, and call it the Clinton compromise.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  73. It makes me wonder why the GOP doesn’t just pass a budget as similar to the 1998 budget as possible, and call it the Clinton compromise.

    For one thing, it would return defense spending to 1998 levels, when we were still under the delusion that we had no significant enemies and could relax our guard, because that had worked so well for us after WW1 and again after WW2. It certainly would have no provision for the multi-fronted war we’re currently fighting.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  74. To spend like 1998, you’d at the very least have to equalize for population growth and inflation. I think that there are a few departments that have been created since then. Democrats would be screaming about Grover Norquist or something if we tried to do that.

    carlitos (00428f)

  75. Line up here for your “free” government handouts!

    http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10101.html

    Just what I want to do. Pay into a government life insurance program, that doesn’t invest any of the money I pay into it, but does give food stamps to aliens on parole.

    Because, you know the whole reason I’ve been working all these years is so I’ll be able to support guys that come up from Mexico, get a green card, get busted in L.A. for gangbanging stuff, and then get out on parole.

    Great system. Sign me up.

    Dave Surls (58a021)

  76. That’s what Social Security is: you work for 45 years, and then you get to stop, and the younger generation will support you, so that they can have a chance at rest after they’ve put in their own 45… but somehow that’s some monstrous aberration, especially if it means (cue ominous music) higher taxes

    If you don’t see the major flaws in this, then you are beyond help.

    This scheme will remain sound only if (a) the ratio of those drawing Social Security to those paying into it does not increase and (b) the average life span does not increase.

    The reason is that it might be relatively easy for 8 people working to support 1 pensioner, but it becomes absolutely onerous when only 2 people support that 1 pensioner. Plus, it’s much harder to support a person for 20 years past retirment than it is to support him for 10.

    Aside from that, what give me the right to demand that anyone outside my own family support me?

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  77. Yes, Milhouse and carlitos, those are good points.

    I guess my reaction is that we could still do the best we can to come up with a budget very near 1998 levels, with changes mainly for things we can’t shut down, such as the three wars Obama is running, or the Department of Homeland Security.

    But insofar as this means a bunch of other new crap loses funding that didn’t even exist in 1998, that’s a feature.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  78. three wars Obama is running

    Impossible.

    Bringing Our Troops Home

    Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.

    Weasel words. They left huge parts of combat brigades in Iraq, redeploying them as ‘advise and assist’ brigades.

    carlitos (00428f)

  79. “I actually saying this months ago when the issue was 99+ weeks of unemployment…”

    Another big scam.

    I haven’t worked a paying job for two years, OTOH, I’m about to send off thousands of dollars to the Feds (quarterly estimated). I’m looking at the California EDD website, and I swear to God, it looks like I’m still qualified to collect Unemployment.

    I’m no expert on it, and maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see any rule on their website that would keep a guy like me from scamming the system for as long as I felt like it, even though I own a nice piece of property and have money in the bank.

    Great system. Sign me up.

    Dave Surls (58a021)

  80. “Impossible.” says carlitos.

    If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible […]

    In the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it.

    In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

    Don’t tell Obama what he can’t do! Holding him to the rules or promises he set himself is not Hope and Change! Nothing is true!

    Dustin (c16eca)

  81. The cost of government is what it spends, not what it taxes.
    Higher taxes encourage politicians to spend more.
    So with the false dilemma of “status quo” vs. “lower spending/higher taxes”, I chose “status quo” as the best long-term strategy.

    Calvin Dodge (a9ffb4)

  82. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/04/the-do-nothing-path-ctd.html

    I note that in late 18th-century White Russia, under the rule of the Czar, people paid considerably less than 10% of their income in taxes*, and yet that burden was considered onerous.
    Income taxes were only one part of the Czarist tax scheme; given the flaws of the Czarist government, anything paid in taxes, especially by Jews, could probably be considered an overpayment;
    and I suspect that the Alter Rebbe had in mind the Talmudic view of tax collection as robbery on behalf of the government. (Something shared by the writers of the New Testament when they classified tax collectors with the scum of the earth.)

    Comment by Have Blue — 4/15/2011 @ 12:01 pm
    Exactly. Which is why my taxes are low compared to preBush taxes; and why Obama and the Democrats were so explicit about reversing the Bush tax cuts only for the top brackets.

    kishnevi (437df2)

  83. Sorry, I messed up slightly in comment 82. The link is to yet another flaw of the do nothing plan.

    kishnevi (437df2)

  84. Kish, I cited Torah Or only for the factual information that the taxes people paid to the Czar amounted to substantially less then 10% of their income. The author mentions this casually; he makes no comment about it, for good or ill. Thus, it must have been a matter of well-known and uncontroversial fact, that he could expect his readers to nod at and go on.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  85. Comment by Milhouse — 4/15/2011 @ 2:26 pm
    Hmm. I guess that’s what I get for only having the Tanya in my bookcase and not any of his other writings.

    In any case, Shabbat shalom…

    kishnevi (437df2)

  86. If you do not want your taxes raised then move to a 3rd world country…………where taxes are so butt high that hyperinflation is 760,000,000,000,384%……Makes sense if your a big fan of Pol Pot’s handy work.

    DohBiden (6655ba)

  87. The bush tax cuts were for everyone you d*ck

    DohBiden (6655ba)

  88. I am in no way in favor of the Cloward-Priven strategy in either it means or its goals.

    Jeff Crump: I wasn’t accusing you of being in favor of the Cloward-Piven strategy. It’s just that we all forsee economic collapse, and some of us hope that the collapse will be followed by the electorate learning its lesson. Others hope that the collapse will be the pretext for installing a nice, cozy authoritatian regime … with themselves at the top, of course, because they’re the best and the brightest, the Vanguard of the Proletariat.

    It’s kinda like the aphorism: “1984: to us, a grim warning. To the Left, a user’s manual.”

    Murgatroyd (fd5fcd)

  89. Dang. “… authoritarian …”

    Murgatroyd (fd5fcd)

  90. I was recently reading about 13th century peasants who were forced to work on the lord’s manor fields for 56 days each year. The rest of their labor was for themselves on their own fields.

    Sheesh, I wish I only had to work 56 days to pay my taxes. Serfs had it pretty good compared to me.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  91. ___________________________________________

    Seriously, some of you guys and your anti-tax religion should just move to the 3rd world.
    Comment by timb — 4/15/2011 @ 11:08 am

    It’s hilarious when a liberal in America starts fretting about this society becoming like the Third World. Hilarious because the phony do-gooder ideas and policies of the left — their lazy, corrupt type of compassion — have, if anything, nurtured Third Worldism.

    After all, most of the urban areas in this nation — commonly known as “inner-city America” — that come closest to resembling some desperate, depressing backwards society of South/Central America (ie, Mexico, Venezuela) or Africa (take your pick of forever-dysfunctional nation) have been dominated by Democrat-Party politicians and principles for decades.

    Mark (411533)

  92. “Serfs had it pretty good compared to me.”

    Looking at the big picture, I think I’d just as soon be around nowadays than then.

    That Black Death thing, Mongols invading, and whatnot doesn’t really work for me.

    Dave Surls (75aba4)

  93. Sullivan is almost deranged enough to be humorous,
    the most irresponsible plan imaginable, something
    that would evoke, lyrics from Creedence Clearwater
    REvival

    superman returns (8a8b93)

  94. ___________________________________________

    But we also have an anti-tax problem. I have literally seen conservatives argue that taxation is unconstitutional – which is mind-numbingly wrong, but symptomatic of a burgeoning opposition to the government “stealing my money”.

    Your comments remind me of this big-time liberal in my workplace. He’s a big fan of Obama, an admirer of Bill Clinton, a devout supporter of victimhood politics, and a big-mouth critic of conservatism/Republicans with a passion. I laugh and snicker at him because he does contortionist routines to avoid paying taxes and tries to take advantage of every tax shelter known to mankind.

    In that regard, he’s not too different from one of the beloved figures of the Democrat Party and liberalism, Franklin D Roosevelt. The guy who back in the 1930s excoriated the wealthy for avoiding taxes, who happily raised taxes in the midst of the Great Depression, and then was discovered to have had the gall — the friggin’ nerve — to tell the IRS the higher taxes didn’t apply to his own income.

    LIMOUSINE LIBERALISM (and most folks on the left are guilty of that behavior): Sickening

    And that anti-tax problem is coupled with a fiscal conservatism that only ever wants to cut other peoples’ programs, so that a Midwest farmer can whine about entitlement spending out of one side of his mouth and beg for his subsidy check out of the other.

    I fully agree with that, although I suspect a lot of such farmers are chameleon in their politics and probably so squishy on election day that they’ll secretly vote for any number of pro-enabler liberals or publicly cheer on conservatives or “centrists” who already are well known for being two-faced and unprincipled.

    Mark (411533)

  95. Anything of lasting significance will always need to be based on truth.

    Reasoning from truth means getting rid of myths.
    – It is a myth that government can simply increase revenue by raising taxes and there will be no negative consequences (other than a few really stinkin’ rich people being only a little stinkin’ rich).
    – It is a myth that the money of rich people does nothing but make rich people happy. Every time Obama made a comment about rich people going to Vegas, or rich people buying private airplanes, or whatever else, those comments hurt “everyday people” who worked in Vegas or worked in building airplanes, or ran grocery stores in towns that once built airplanes. The problem with private airplanes is if you are taking money from somebody else to pay for it.
    – It is a myth that social welfare programs have functioned as designed and have had the beneficial effects without negative consequences. As said previously, social security was set up in a different time for an entirely different set of circumstances then dishonestly stolen from for many decades. Medicaid and Medicare were likewise set up in different circumstances to perform functions different from the situations today.

    I don’t think there are many people who don’t think they should pay taxes, but they want to pay taxes for things that work, things that are run honestly, and without deceit or bait and switch. If SS is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever developed, the “stimulus package” was the biggest bait and switch move ever devised.

    Here’s a political ad for you- Joe Biden spouting on about how he will personally watch how the stimulus money is spent and keep the American people informed, and then shots of all of those web pages and clips from speeches where he has kept his promise.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  96. After all, most of the urban areas in this nation — commonly known as “inner-city America” — that come closest to resembling some desperate, depressing backwards society of South/Central America (ie, Mexico, Venezuela) or Africa (take your pick of forever-dysfunctional nation) have been dominated by Democrat-Party politicians and principles for decades.

    Er, have you ever stepped foot in a third world country? Even the worst slum is far better than than the poorer sections of the real Third World cities. Even Detroit doesn’t have cardboard shacks with dirt floors whose closest approach to “running water” is the sewage flowing down the street outside their doors.

    Which no doubt has something to do with the fact that so many people from those third world countries want to come here.

    kishnevi (a7750b)

  97. Seriously, some of you guys and your anti-tax religion should just move to the 3rd world.

    I think this is representative of a common fallacy: that government providing a myriad of services is the only path to prosperity.

    The truth is, this country prospered and built a great deal of wealth in a very short time when government really didn’t provide much more than a police force.

    Men will prosper when government gets out of the way and allows them to be free.

    Some chump (e84e27)

  98. “The truth is, this country prospered and built a great deal of wealth in a very short time when government really didn’t provide much more than a police force.”

    I would amend that as follows…

    The truth is, this country prospered and built a great deal of wealth in a very short time BECAUSE government really didn’t provide much more than a police force.

    Dave Surls (be7c7f)

  99. 18

    Re financial collapse

    If you do not think that Roosevelt and democrat party were totalitarians you are mistaken. Unilaterally he stole everyones gold. He instituted wage and price controls and the government controlled damn near everything through WWII until after the War when the overwhelmingly republican house and senate de-regulated the mess

    NotaYank (3f87b1)

  100. It is a fact that redistributing the fruits of your labor is what this country was founded on, and this did not become a truly great country until the Great Society programs were enacted. Had the Warren Court gone further and forced economic justice, we would be a greater country today. So, now I have to settle for signing statements, ignoring Congress, lousy technology in the Oval Office, and an ungrateful hateful populace that dspises him because he is black, and they hate taxes, and resent me for my greatness, and desire to redistribute some wealth.

    Barack Obama (318f81)

  101. The truth is, this country prospered and built a great deal of wealth in a very short time BECAUSE government really didn’t provide much more than a police force.

    that accounts for the first sixty years or so, but not after that. I’ve read, for instance, that not a single railroad in this country was built without some government involvement, usually at the state level–and that involvement normally went hand in hand with legislative and other sorts of graft. Jackson’s policies contributed directly to the depression of the 1830s. The tariff fights of the first half of the 19th century . Etc. etc.

    A lot of people seem to idealize the US of the 19th century as a laissez faire economy, whereas in fact it was far from being so. Not nearly as bad as things are today, but crony capitializm and special interests could be found then as much as they are today. The important difference was that, with the frontier still open, a person who didn’t like things back home, or who was looking for a new economic start, had a place to go to.
    (Which might have something to do with the western states being in general more libertarian/conservative than the eastern and midwestern states.)

    kishnevi (a7750b)

  102. If those were the only two choices, I would take the second since the status quo is not sustainable. I would prefer, however, an approach that would couple Ryan’s spending cuts with tax reform…perhaps a flat tax approach… that would not be revenue neutral, but provide for a small increase in revenues that would be used solely for deficit reduction!

    RAZ (4e0dda)

  103. _________________________________________

    Even the worst slum is far better than than the poorer sections of the real Third World cities.

    That is due in part to most cities in the US containing neighborhoods that have gone through the process of becoming flat-out slums over the past 50-plus years originally were at least somewhat middle class, or at least were not the total ramshackle disasters associated with stereotypical Third World environments. However, most Third World nations and some of the worst areas in America share one thing in common: A happiness with socialistic, leftist governance, or an odd combination of that and strong-arm politics. Or certainly where most people in such environments are so devoid of common sense — and also are so desperate and self-destructive — that they time and time again fall for the smooth talking and cheap lies of extremists, just about all of them of the left.

    Mark (411533)

  104. Here’s some food for reflection on a rainy Friday night. This is a commenter’s wisdom that was posted on lil Ezra’s WP column for today:

    I think this is why I am so worried about the state of the modern republican party… They are needed as a counterbalance to liberal spending tendencies (and I say that as a liberal), but the modern republican party seems so divorced from financial reality, and their proposals so bizarre and unworkable, that it is not clear where sensible restraint is going to come from.

    elissa (2efb8b)

  105. “that accounts for the first sixty years or so”

    Nah.

    Our government(s) didn’t start becoming a monster until pretty recently.

    Government spending (local/state/federal) as a percentage of GDP has gone through the roof just in the last 100 years.

    It was at 8% of GDP in 1910, and now it’s at 40%…and it’s almost certainly going to get worse, if guys like Obama have their way.

    If we’d started out with the kind of government we have now (gigantic), we’d be nowhere near as well off as we are…IMO,of course.

    We didn’t get to be the richest country in the world (in absolute terms and in GDP/per capita) because of the now all-powerful nanny state.

    Dave Surls (be7c7f)

  106. Our government(s) didn’t start becoming a monster until pretty recently.

    It did, however, begin interfering in a substantial way in the market place, and stop being only an entity that offered only police, national defence, and courts, early on. In the 1830s, Jackson tried to manipulate the markets by building up the position of state chartered banks and taking advantage of the western real estate boom–both of which turned into bubbles, and because of the government intervention, the most serious economic downturn in American history before 1929.

    kishnevi (a7750b)

  107. My only primary objection to taxes is that I don’t believe we are on the left side of that curve, we’re on the right side — any and all increases in taxes are likely to reduce federal income by slowing the economy more than they bring in.

    Convince me we’re on the right side of the curve — that increasing taxes WON’T hurt the economy more than it brings in — and I’ll grant that they’re necessary.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8)

  108. “It did, however, begin interfering in a substantial way in the market place”

    Definitely not a good idea, but they meddle much, much, much more now than they ever did in the 19th century.

    If people want to know how that works out…just look at commie countries. Every single last one of them was (or is) a poverty stricken hellhole, not to mention being nasty old tyrannies.

    We need to move away from that…not towards it.

    And, that means slashing government programs. And, I mean to the bone.

    If I was running things, I’d be looking towards cutting back government to the size it was in 1910. We know that worked out pretty well, and we also know that there’s no such thing as a successful state controlled economy…so, there’s really only one way to go.

    Dave Surls (be7c7f)

  109. If it came down to THIS choice I would decide to get the death of the United States of America over with quickly rather than suffer through an agonizing painful slow spiral into death.

    That choice would indicate there is no hope for the US at all.

    Ryan’s plan is, unfortunately, not a starting point for negotiations. Rather, it is where negotiations should end up.

    {^_^}

    JD (bcdcf2)

  110. @ JD (#109 — 4/15/2011 @ 11:40 pm), re this assertion:

    Ryan’s plan is, unfortunately, not a starting point for negotiations. Rather, it is where negotiations should end up.

    In the abstract and in the absolute senses, you’re right, of course, that more ought be done.

    As is, the Path to Prosperity already gives Democrats a whole lot to demagogue.

    More fundamentally, though, the Dems still control the Senate and the White House. And although the GOP’s blocking ability is dramatically greater than it was in the prior Congress, there are still limits to the practical ability of the GOP House (assuming it can maintain a majority) to leverage a hostage-taking strategy (pass the PtP or see the government shut down until we blink or you do).

    If that showdown comes and it swings 5% of the national vote to Obama, he wins reelection. And if he wins reelection, he will continue to block any budgets containing cuts bolder than Ryan has proposed.

    I know I’m a broken record on this, but I have yet to see a convincing counterargument to this point: Slashing government spending to the full extent that is essential is necessarily a four-year project. It started on the day after Obama was elected, and it cannot possibly be concluded until the day he is defeated in November 2012. Wishing very hard, or agreeing about how terrible the problem is, cannot change the structural bones of this situation, which are based in the constitutional specifications for how often we elect presidents, senators, and congressmen.

    We all agree that we should be bold. Being reckless is something else, and that’s what it is to expect perfection instantly when the constitution has its own implacable timer. Those whose expectations are unrealistically high now only guarantee themselves frustration; I fear that out of frustration, some number of them will do something rash, like stay home on election day or waste a vote on some impossible candidate, some Perot-come-lately for 2012.

    History has its pace, and this, friends and neighbors, is history — whether we ultimately fail or succeed. Keep your eye on the goal — defeating Obama in 2012 and returning 60-vote control in the Senate to the GOP. Then but only then can what we collectively seek become reality.

    Beldar (cd529f)

  111. I’ve long been for a combination of tax hikes and lowered spending to fix the deficit problem. This was an easy one for me.

    JRM (cd0a37)

  112. JD (the one who makes funny designs at the ends of comments, talks an awful lot, and does not call people douchenozzles):

    I have asked you this before, but could you please change your handle? We already have a JD and although I can tell the difference, not everyone can.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  113. I see NO reason to support any tax increases of any kind.

    The problem is one of spending, of wasting money and giving away money for silly things or paying us for doing what we should be doing anyway.

    In business we keep streamlining the supply chain and eliminating the middleman while the government continues to do the exact opposite, becoming a bigger burden in our personal lives and businesses.

    John (98859b)

  114. that accounts for the first sixty years or so, but not after that. I’ve read, for instance, that not a single railroad in this country was built without some government involvement, usually at the state level–and that involvement normally went hand in hand with legislative and other sorts of graft.

    And there you’ve countered your own objection. Government’s insistence on subsidising and manipulating the emerging railroad industry inevitably warped it, with the resulting scandals. Had all the governments — federal, state and local — left the industry to develop on its own, at its own pace, the USA as a whole would have been a whole lot more prosperous.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  115. We remember George the Sr’s deal with the Democrats: he would accept tax increases for promised cuts. So we got the tax increases, then the Democrat congressmen laughed.
    Look at Boehner’s deal, with cuts that aren’t real cuts except for $350 million, in exchange for keeping the govt open. Who in their right mind would trust the Democrats enough to make a deal like that again?

    waelse1 (a9825c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1979 secs.