Comments on: GOP Lawmaker Finally Admits Tax Cuts Will “Increase The Debt”

By: Drclaw

Drclaw — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:49:40 +0000

Its not perverse, if you mean a senseless or counter-productive action . Its a calculated strategy entirely consistent with time honored and core Repub principle to “starve the beast”, that is, reduce the power of the federal government to be effective in any way. This is why no matter what the scenario (i.e. good economy or bad economy), the solution is to cut taxes. This is why they disingenuously fail to point out (i.e. the Heritage Foundation web site) that it is possible to preserve the tax cuts for the middle class but force the 250k+ folks to pay their fair share.

By: Drclaw

Drclaw — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:41:47 +0000

there's a huge difference between a household and a country that makes this analogy really dangerous. A country can print its own money. This sounds sort of outrageous, but as a number of really smart people have pointed out, using this in the right way can be really helpful.

The primary problem, theoretically, is that going this route will reduce investor confidence and cause inflation, both of which are bad. However, Japan has "spent" its way out of a a really moribund economy last decade by increasing its debt (it's quite a bit higher relative to its GNP than ours is), with the central bank and citizens taking on this debt (in the form of bonds). There was no inflation (5% over the last ten years), and no loss of investor confidence.

All of us are for not spending money frivolously, but increasing the debt temporarily to invest in things that will make us more productive later is sound, even if you have to take on a little more debt to do so. Haven't we all done something similar on occasion, such as using your credit card to repair your car so you can work?

The issue is less the spending, than what it is spent on.

By: Mick_Stepp

Mick_Stepp — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:25:57 +0000

The Right's obsession with tax cuts for the wealthy is perverse. The real issue is how little we get for our tax dollar. Civilized nations pay more taxes than Americans but they get health care, education and retirement. We get the war machine.

By: pdxmole

pdxmole — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:12:44 +0000

You have a point, and yet frame it in a way that lends itself to (willful?) misunderstanding.

When you are a homeowner and you cut back on expenses, you don't cut back on what you need (food, basic utilities, essential comforts like toilet-paper, transportation). If you spent over half your budget on gambling, 4-wheeling or hunting (setting aside however much you think that saves you on your food-budget) those're the sorts of things we'd expect you to excise before demanding that we all work harder to provide for them. Not all spending is the same, and so we can't talk about a one-size-fits-all cutting scheme.

Some spending makes no sense at all to cut, and if it's been cut already and you are suffering for it, it would make sense to increase that spending while decreasing it elsewhere. That's what I think is at stake when we talk about tax-cuts and spending.

By: JSquercia

JSquercia — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:11:54 +0000

With the Republicans ANY tax increase is the LARGEST in American History . I think one that might rank right up there WITH the Largest Tax Increases in American History might be the Reagan Tax Increase on FICA which clobbered the Middle Class . It was sold as a way to prepay the Baby Boomers Retirement by creating Surpluses in the Trust Fund which would be lent back to Federal Government . When the time came for boomers to retire the Trust Fund would be paid back what was loaned as it was needed
to cover the shortfall in the taxes collected . Of course now our esteemed Republicans don't want to repay what was borrowed and dismiss the bonds held by the Trust Fund as mere pieces of paper .
Incidentally at the same time Reagan did this he also taxed for the FIRST time Unemployment Benefits (So Republican) and Social Security Payments for so called upper income Seniors . The point at which Seniors were considered Upper Income was NOT set at the Start of the Highest Tax Bracket and even more strangely it was NOT indexed unlike the brackets themselves .Thus Seniors suffered from bracket creep

By: jebpgh

jebpgh — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:56:05 +0000

It's more than a little disingenuous to treat the expiration of a temporary reduction in taxes as a “tax increase”. After all, the whole argument for the cuts in the first place, according to the Bush administration, was to “stimulate” the economy. Documented evidence suggests the cuts really didn't do that when applied to the richest segment of the taxpaying public. As Bob Reich said when they first came up for debate the rich are, by definition “rich” and have all the income they need so any increase in their income will be directed toward either more savings or the purchase of things that do not contribute to economic growth (e.g. luxury items or fourth and fifth homes at inflated prices). But I think the Democrats will miss an opportunity here to draw a sharp focus on this issue because it can clearly refute the idea that the Republicans actually care about the deficit at all – other than using it as a strawman to support cuts in social spending and income transfers to lower income households as part of the recovery strategy.

By: flirtsy

flirtsy — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:50:25 +0000

Shouldn't we, as a country, be looking for ways to decrease spending before we ask people to pony up more money? As a homeowner, when budgets get tight, I cut back on expenses because I can't rightfully (morally?) go to my employer and demand More Money to support my spending habits.

I'm not saying we should not expire or continue the Bush Tax Cuts, but let's go after the real problem of overspending first, and see where that gets us.

By: denhickey

denhickey — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:02:46 +0000

Largest tax increase in american history (which I truly doubt is actually the case) which mainly affects the wealthy. Well, that should go nicely with the record debt and near record economic implosion brought to us by the wealthy.