The GOP and the Politics of Economic Pain

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You and I clearly see two totally different realities. Other countries don't treat their government workers like #######, pay them poorly and then complain. Not only is this a moronic attitude, but the end result speaks for itself.

Small businesses get a hell of a lot of tax breaks and able to make use a large number of deductions. Whereas, as a salaried worker, I don't get pretty-much any tax breaks. Speaking of small business, I also wouldn't work for some small business for the life of me. Too demanding, expect a lot and don't pay anywhere near as well.

Paul, the reality is that I've never heard of someone having to work two or three jobs to make ends meet prior to coming here. You talk as if the 60,000,000 Americans living in poverty [entire UK Population eqv] are living it up, which is simply not reality. Realistically what more can these people cut?

What gets me about every single Libertarian on here is your ability to go on and on about something based on opinion, yet flat-out ignore reality and often refuse to accept what is or is not working abroad. The Chinese Communist government will beat the US, yet you guys will still be going on about less taxes, less government etc etc etc.

You try and make it sound all black and white. It's not. Maybe 103 years ago it was, but it's gradually been becoming less and less transparent and more and more opaque.

The enemy has been the same enemy for quite awhile. They will always run the economy, they will always control the economy, and they will always keep getting richer, whether they let more of the populous join them for a little taste, or they make more eat off of the street.

It's not about government, it's not about taxes. Want to know why to be against taxes? Because our taxes DO NOT BUY ANYTHING. They are worthless. They are interest payments only. We have been paying interest payments back on our loans (that continue to grow) for the past 70 years.... 70 damn years since we've not been in permanent debt. You think we're all set and ready to go in the world and catch up to your "QOL" that you so love to talk about the rest of the world.

You say what more can people give up? How about their ignorance? They wake up, take their kids to Mcdonalds, drop them off at daycare, go to work, pick up their kids from day care, go to McDonalds, throw the kids in front of the TV, and then do the same thing the next day. These are "poverty" level Americans in a lot of cases. AFDC checks going to buy cigarettes, fast food, beer, liquor, junk food, etc. That is impoverished America. They have a TV, more than likely a car to get around in, etc.

Washington isn't representative of the people. Washington isn't representative of the states. Washington is representative of the banks and the corporations that are under them. Sometimes a small sacrifice is made to make it look like they're suffering as well, but ultimately it has been and always will be them.

Until people wake up, demand action, and demand that corporate America suffers just like middle-class/lower America, then we'll never see any change whatsoever.

[Heracles 417]

You are not wrong in suggesting that many have no interest in improving period. I think this is quite cultural in orientation and rampant throughout poor communities in America and abroad.

You are kidding yourself though if you think the honest poor in America have a sweet deal. Yeah a sweet deal versus those in various third world countries but hardly some sweet deal. Many live in squalor, in conditions and poverty that I have not seen since my trip to India; definitely not something I ever saw in AUS.

Canadians and Australians pay taxes, receive 100 times the benefits, have a much much higher Q.O.L and are hardly poor. Therefore, what does that tell you about taxes? Is it the tax that is the issue or the system and where it goes? They certainly dont have duplication of government in every county, as counties just handle local planning issues period. Which means those employed on a state level are paid well, with the best hired and there is no US style duplication of services; which means lower cost to the taxpayer.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Booyah!

[evli1966 88]

You are not wrong in suggesting that many have no interest in improving period. I think this is quite cultural in orientation and rampant throughout poor communities in America and abroad.

You are kidding yourself though if you think the honest poor in America have a sweet deal. Yeah a sweet deal versus those in various third world countries but hardly some sweet deal. Many live in squalor, in conditions and poverty that I have not seen since my trip to India; definitely not something I ever saw in AUS.

Canadians and Australians pay taxes, receive 100 times the benefits, have a much much higher Q.O.L and are hardly poor. Therefore, what does that tell you about taxes? Is it the tax that is the issue or the system and where it goes? They certainly dont have duplication of government in every county, as counties just handle local planning issues period. Which means those employed on a state level are paid well, with the best hired and there is no US style duplication of services; which means lower cost to the taxpayer.

Tell us what other subsidies your country pays out across the globe as the USA does that even compares in the total costs of said money given away.

You tell us how good life is in aussie and how grand the government is etc. but I do not see any other country compare in the out put of money across the globe.

I have not seen anyone here say we do not need infrastructure but the moment we mention cutting back costs oyuside the country or eliminating the Illegal Alien sponge we are called xenophobes (misuse of the word by others).

The fact is no other country even the ones who sport how their quality of life is better puts out as much cash in the globe as the USA; I do not even think China does except to loan money to which in itself positions themselves.

If our government were to make those cuts what would happen to the globe economy while our spending did reduce itself. (that is if the Obama Admin didnt respend it erroneously/

I could be wrong but do not think I am 100% out of whack.

[Sgt. McGee 27]

Sgt.: you "notice" things without *any* evidence and if I were more prone to take offense, you certainly would have offended me. You might look and consider my post immediately above and reflect whether an apology is warranted.

I'll apologize for incorrectly assuming that you personally don't give your time/money elsewhere, but by and large, I stand by my observation: *most* "big government" people believe it's the government's job to provide for people. As far as evidence, I don't know what you want for my personal observations, unless you want phone numbers and CVs for the people I've spoken to about this very thing who believe what I've stated that they believe... I'm not sure they'd welcome your phone call, though, so maybe you can take my word for it? They're out there.

Either way, where do you draw the line on how much responsibilty the government has to keep our economy moving? Should they just tax 100% of all income, and give us an allowance to make sure we keep spending? The notion that a cut in consumer spending can have deleterious effects upon the economy does hold some water. The problem is, if we put the focus on maintaining the economy, rather than fixing it, we're just prolonging the inevitable.

Edited July 7, 2010 by Sgt. McGee

[Texanadian 10]

Taking your two points one at a time:

When will it be time to cut spending and increase taxes (primarily on the rich in order that the tax increase have the least possible contractionary effect)? It is a very good, impt question. If proper stimulus is in place, probably 1-2 years. Will Congress actually do it? Skepticism is warranted -- but which party was the last one to run a balanced budget? (Hint: Clinton was president then, and he put the budget on track toward surplus with his first budget in 1993.) Each GOP president we've had since Eisenhower (maybe Ford, but not really) has presided over an explosion in the deficit. Carter did a decent job holding the line -- a statement hard for many to swallow but go back and examine the facts.

Next, we still have a situation where, on average, there are 5 job seekers for each opening. The odds aren't good for job seekers and employers will tend to discriminate in favor of those whose unemployment is shorter rather than longer. (I would -- in fact in a previous recession, I did.) Studies by economics show that unemployment can encourage the unemployed to be pickier during good economic times, but your argument that the unemployed are discouraged from accepting new work is supported by the data, empirically, during severe recessions. Yours is a bias with a certain appeal -- but it simply isn't supported by the data. I have a strong bias (maybe my scientific/technical training kicks in) to act on fact when facts are available.

We've only had a handful of balanced budgets over the last 75 years. Government has taken the idea that they must spend into deficit every year to keep up full employment. Did Clinton really balance the budget and have a surplus? Or was it creative accounting that borrowed from here and deposited it there? Did the debt actually go down in those years? No. Having said that, I didn't mind Clinton. I'm not so much of a hardcore party person as I am a politician person. It's also one of the reasons I like NH's system where you can run under multiple parties. Candidate A can be a Democrat-Republican. Candidate B can be a Libertarian-Democrat.

The problem with taxes is that they are not tied to balanced budgets and surpluses the way they are for individuals. An individual will pay off their credit cards and put an extra payment on the mortgage if they get a raise or a better paying job. Congress will simply spend more money and keep the debt the same. The problem with using debt to GDP or military spending to GDP etc is that the other costs are higher now than in the past. Somebody who is 18 years old with no kids and lives at home can spend 30% of their income at the bars and clubs. Somebody who is 40 years old with a house and 3 kids can't spend the same 30% of salary at the clubs.

Taxation has 2 ways of thought for me.

1) Higher taxation results in more spending rather than less debt. As such there is no reason to ever vote for higher taxes. They can't make do with what they already bring in? Taxes at all levels are about 45% of the national income.

2) Taxes should rise to balance out new government spending. This puts some pain into the system. People who vote for people who "bring home the bacon" should suffer the effects of it. Candidate A supporting Candidate B in another state's request for funding (on the terms that B also support A's spending requests) would result in all of us paying more for it. It would also make the citizen take voting more seriously if we had tax rates that went up every year. This is a fairness issue. The trouble is that fairness and taxation are mostly exclusive of each other. This would also hamper the economy by going back to the tax rates of decades ago.

UItimately I have to side with # 1 above. I'll take principle over fairness.

I have disagree on taxing the higher incomes more rather than a broad based tax increase. That's one of the reasons I like the Libertarian party. It's a party where everybody feels the benefits and everybody feels the loss when it comes to government spending. The current idea of taxing one group more to give subsidies to another is what causes ever increasing spending and ever increasing demands for SOMEBODY ELSE to pay for it.

I got a laugh out of Gore and Kerry talking about Bush spending the 7 trillion dollar surplus and putting the country in debt. And just where was this 7 trillion dollar surplus? Oh that was the perceived future surplus that would have happened if everything stayed the same. At the time, the Bush tax cuts made sense. The budget was (legally) balanced. It was a time of peace. I definitely didn't support Bush's spending over his presidency though.

Alan Greenspan is an idiot.

This is an effect that you get when you have concentrated power by upper level government. I wouldn't say he's an idiot. You have to be pretty smart to get to that level. But he has made mistakes. Recommending that people take variable rate mortgages when we were at all time low interest rates was a bad idea. His job is not a job that can be easily replaced. There aren't a lot of people out there with a thorough knowledge capable of taking the job.

You and I clearly see two totally different realities. Other countries don't treat their government workers like #######, pay them poorly and then complain. Not only is this a moronic attitude, but the end result speaks for itself.

Small businesses get a hell of a lot of tax breaks and able to make use a large number of deductions. Whereas, as a salaried worker, I don't get pretty-much any tax breaks. Speaking of small business, I also wouldn't work for some small business for the life of me. Too demanding, expect a lot and don't pay anywhere near as well.

What gets me about every single Libertarian on here is your ability to go on and on about something based on opinion, yet flat-out ignore reality and often refuse to accept what is or is not working abroad. The Chinese Communist government will beat the US, yet you guys will still be going on about less taxes, less government etc etc etc.

The Chinese don't have a welfare state mentality. You have to work to make it there.

I think it's you who has it wrong about Libertarians. It's the status queue Republicans and Democrats who want to keep things the same. How has the war on poverty worked? There are more people claiming benefits. How has the war on drugs worked? We have a drug war right on the border. Has education gotten better with more federal control? Nope. Have increased gun laws resulted in a drop in crime? Absolutely not. Has increased government spending over the last 10 years resulted in better anything? In 1999, federal spending was 1.7 trillion. Now it's 3.5 trillion. The problem is not too low of taxes. It's the spending. How could it not be?

You are kidding yourself though if you think the honest poor in America have a sweet deal. Yeah a sweet deal versus those in various third world countries but hardly some sweet deal. Many live in squalor, in conditions and poverty that I have not seen since my trip to India; definitely not something I ever saw in AUS.

Canadians and Australians pay taxes, receive 100 times the benefits, have a much much higher Q.O.L and are hardly poor.

I think you're comparing the poor in the US to the middle cass in Canada. The poor in the USA have section 8, earned income credit, food stamps, medicaid, welfare. It costs the poor essentially nothing to provide these. They also get cheaper food than Canada, cheaper gasoline, cheaper cars, cheaper car insurance, and lower sin taxes. It's not the poor in the US that have it bad. It's the poor in Canada. It's much easier to get ahead in the USA as the cost of living (in most places) is less.