And this is exactly what you get when money buys politicians, remove money from our election process, then see what happens.

Aunty,

Of course I agree with you that you can solve the problem with ONLY spending cuts. But you're sort of making my point by being black/white about this and insisting that ONLY spending cuts should be considered. This is EXACTLY the sort of inflexible thinking that has us in our current mess IMO. These are complex issues, and they require multi-dimensional solutions, not sound bites.

Tax revenues, as a fraction of our GNP, are at the lowest they've been in 50 years (see my earlier link). While I ABSOLUTELY believe spending cuts are warranted/needed/essential and I've posted that many times previously.

However, I also believe that we've made our current situation much worse by creating and extending massive, unfunded, ongoing stimulus (tax breaks). In our current situation, I'd return tax rates to the median they have been over the last 50 years, and cut spending aggressively to close the remaining gap.

I think there is plenty of blame to go around for this economy; wall street, banks, congress, and individual citizens.

You frame it as spending problem, but what we are really talking about is the deficit. So why renew a tax break for the wealthy that adds an additional 700 billion to the deficit? For all the middle class Republican voters, did everyone get the fact that the Republicans were holding the chronically unemployed hostage to get their tax break renewal for the wealthy?

So who's fault is it that we now have such a huge deficit?
Was the budget balanced when Obama took office?
Was the budget balanced when Bush Jr. took office?
Answer these question truthfully and you'll see clearly where the problem lies.

Freespool: I know you know the answert to that. When Bush inherited the Clinton surplus he told us we need a rebate on our taxes because we were paying too much which was why we had a surplus.

Of course,the huge Bush tax cut and two wars got rid of the surplus. So perhaps we should slow spending and end the rebate. Taxes on upper income earners were at one of the lowest leves in history when Bush cut them further. Returning to the pre Bush rates would still leave us at one of the lowest tax rates in modern times, add in a bit of fiscal restraint and we would soon wipe out deficits.

Take a look at historical tax rates. Note that in 1962 the incremantal rate on upper income levels was 70% or more.


Now the guys who buy our politicians whine about rates of 36% while we run huge deficits.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/federalindividualratehistory-20080107.pdf

Cutting taxes on the rich for the last ten years sure didn't help the deficit, and it never will...and you can never cut spending enough to end the deficit, not without a revenue stream coming in.

Fish on...

Todd

Not to mention that reducing spending translates either directly or indirectly to increased unemployment, which subsequently adds to the defecit and further reduces revenue. It's a dilly of a pickle we find ourselves in today, friends.

AM

NO arguments here on the last paragraph, and given that, I don't know why (in your first paragraph) you're worried about rich people BUYING the argument they should pay more. I will restate my two core points, both of which are contrary to that assertion:

1. The people I personally know who are in the "Over $250K" income bracket, ALL, 100%, uniformly believe the continuation of the bush tax cuts for them is a policy mistake, nor do they think it will affect hiring (for those who own businesses) in any fashion. They are not eager to pay more to the Govt, who is? But they believe it would be reasonable to be asked to do so.

2. All I am supporting is a return to tax rates that represent what I believe is a sustainable/reasonable "normal" level. I believe, and have provided supporting documentation to show, that our current tax rates are historically low (for my lifetime), and it is no surprise we are in a budget crisis as a result.

You can argue all day whether we got here as a result of spending or revenue, but the bottom line is we have a HUGE debt and a huge deficit that need to be addressed. We're in a giant hole and need to climb out.

I hope you're not implying that I'd do something nutty. Never said I would. Never said I'd endorse such actions.



That's more what I was thinking. There's got to be a lot of people who lost their retirement and now have nothing to lose.

Now there calling extending unemployment benefits an economic stimulus plan..

Ah your right KKK left home at a very early age for reasons I wouldn't rather discuss so advanced education wasn't an option, guess I'll stick with something I know alot about and very few people on this board know anything about..Fishing...Best of luck getting your weekly stimulas check..

I-Fish the Bastion of misinformation as one ODFW manager called it, feel free to fit right in down there. Maybe the nutbag attorney can read you bedtime storys..

What's the payback on the dollar borrowed to pay the unemployment extension.

I think KK's point is that *IF* you're going to borrow a dollar, you get more economic activity FOR that borrowed dollar if it ends up as unemployment, than you do if you give that same dollar as a tax break for folks making $250K+.

People do seem at times to be confused about the difference between writing a check and giving tax breaks. Both cost dollars, and dollars are all equivalent.

Yeah, if I don't continue getting that tax break, I'm going to . . . what? send a couple more jobs to China? Jeez, like IR said, people benefiting from the tax break (pretty much all of us) while keep doing the same things with our money except for that increased fraction that is taxed (and it really is a pretty small amount; for all the bruha you'd think it doubled or tripled our taxes) and contributes to a somewhat smaller deficit, but still doesn't balance the budge.

I'm disgusted that so many Democrats and Republicans are promoting deficit spending. Have they lost their frickin' minds? Maybe my mistake for assuming they had a mind to start with.

Sg

Which philosophical point of view most resembles pay as you go, tax and spend, or give tax breaks to the wealthy and barrow and spend?

I think the problem is that most politicians are willing to run the nation into the ground in order to continue the feel good grope they get from their owners and masters who slather them with $$.