Democrats & Liberals: Archives

But they will try to make the tax cuts permanent. And they will work diligently toward their not so secret goal of undermining social spending programs. While Soc. Sec. is off the table for the moment, Republicans are going to drop the other foot on Medical care. You see, they passed a Rx drug plan made enormously more expensive by Republican’s insistence that drug making companies not have to bid against each other which would have lowered their contract price to the federal taxpayer. Hence they quite deliberately passed the bill to make Medicare unaffordable. Now the other foot drops on Medicare, cutting billions from the program, and that is just a first installment.

The ultimate goal of supply-siders, is so increase the national debt, that social spending programs become obviously unaffordable, hence justifying their elimination, as Pres. Bush was want to do with the Soc. Security reform, which would have ultimately replaced the program with one in which each person is on their own to save for themselves, if they can.

OK! Republicans blew it, and voters can see that now, but, I have yet to hear a single Democrat foster a balanced budget plan. Democrats are all about allowing the tax cuts to sunset, making them just as one-sided and irresponsible and incompetent as Republicans. To rescue our fiscal health and the next generation of workers in schools today, spending cuts AND increasing taxes are needed, which I have been writing about for years, now with no audience. Apparently, I have one now, small though it is.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 18, 2005 02:16 PM

Tax hikes are the same as a cut in pay.
Balance the budget? Get rid of the pork, feel-good programs and lead by example.

Posted by: kctim at October 18, 2005 02:18 PM

Kctim said: “Tax hikes are the same as a cut in pay.”

Actually, tax hikes today, to buy down deficits and debt, are tax savings for tomorrow’s workers. Even Republican Senators are out this week saying we are on track for 11 trillion of national debt by 2009. May I remind you that Republicans came in full control of the budgetary and tax policy in 2000 with a national debt of 5.7 Trillion. They will have doubled it in less than 9 years.

If you think we can cut federal spending by 5 plus trillion dollars in five years without revolution and/or civil strife in this country, you are dreaming. Hence, tax hikes today mean keeping more of one’s paycheck tomorrow, if it lowers the deficit and debt. It only takes political will to do both, allow tax cuts to sunset and cut spending. But Republicans will have none of that kind of fiscal responsibility and discipline. It would cost them their political capital at the polls.

I suggest their political capital is already bankrupt if the polls mean anything at all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 18, 2005 02:27 PM

Tax hikes are coming, because democrats will probably win back both houses, and the Executive Branch too.

Balanced budget, get rid of pork-barrel, waste, graft, irresponsible spending ? Only in your dreams. It’s very unlikely if both main parties continue to take turns runnin’ the country into the ground.

The problem is, regardless of which wing wins, they continue to fly around in circles, and continue to be fiscally & morally bankrupt.
Nothing will change (not much anyway).
The debt is so large now, it may be too late.

It’s doubtful that any reforms will occur.
Government will continue to be for-sale, politicians will continue to peddle influence, and the people will continue to be used and abused.

One possible way to stop the insanity is to oust both main parties who just take turns being irresponsible and unaccountable, and start recalling the most corrupt politicians.
Neither party stands for much of anything anymore. Both main parties are having a good laugh though, because they arrogantly believe we’ll keep empowering them to simply continue to take turns gettin’ theirs, votin’ on pork-barrel, graft, more perks & raises, and being generally irresponsible and unaccountable.

Who here really thinks the federal government is responsible and accountable ?

If your answer is NO, then why continue to empower it to continue to be so ?

Now that both main parties have thoroughly screwed-the-pooch this time, I’m votin’ non-incumbent from now on, and all third parties and all independents should jump at this opportunity to advocate that same message.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 18, 2005 02:41 PM

“Actually, tax hikes today, to buy down deficits and debt, are tax savings for tomorrow’s workers”

Not all of tomorrow’s workers are todays voters though.
As long as our reps keep allowing funding for ridiculous programs, todays voters are not going to agree to pay more.
It makes no sense.
They need to cut spending, bigtime, and convince the voters to do whats best.

Posted by: kctim at October 18, 2005 03:15 PM

kctim said: “They need to cut spending, bigtime, and convince the voters to do whats best.”

And they need to raise taxes on those who will not suffer from the increases, and convince those special interests to do what’s best for their country as well.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 18, 2005 04:00 PM

What’s stopping them? We’ve been running deficits for a few years now, and Republican spending shows no signs of stopping. While d.a.n. and David’s plans are no less deferred than that debts we’re going to end up incurring, yours, kctim, is just as unrealistic. Like it or not, these entitlements are already integrated into our economy. You’re taking from one side to give to another.

But just as unrealistic and ill-advised as a solution to our situation is the current Republican tax policy, if you can really define one out of the mess of tax deductions, write-offs and cuts that they put into the law. They are betting that when all this debt comes due, we’ll be in grand economic shape, and the dead weight will fall on an economy with capable shoulders.

Frankly, our government is bleeding money, and you all are proposing grand spending cuts or great big changes of government that are years in the offing. What I propose is that we stabilize the patient, and get back to the point where the amount of taxes we take in closely approximates what we spend.

Today’s policies are like a credit card in the hand of a teenager. Sure, you’re not paying anything now. But you will later, and your credit will suffer if you fail to pay off your bills, and your wallet will suffer as you are forced to take care of the expenses of living beyond your means.

Only if we recognize that the bills we run up are the taxes we pay, will there be any public support for austerity in spending. People might approve more government spending, but that is the decision of the American people, and it will be done with an awareness that we pay for what we get.

I think this business of spending cuts is fine, as long as we are cutting the frivolous and the unnecessary. otherwise, we’re just finding new ways to bleed money out of our hands. Government money is spent in the context of our country, and what we take from medicare and other entitlements, we are forced to pay elsewhere. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and to paraphrase Andy Dufresne from The Shawshank Redemption We either get busy paying, or we get busy going bankrupt. It’s a hard choice, but I think we’re adults here, and should be familiar with tough choices. Too much about politics nowadays is about avoiding difficulties, instead of confronting them and resolving them before they become worse.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 18, 2005 04:05 PM

This is why the Republicans are going to lose out in the future elections.
________________________________________
QUESTION: Do you think the economy is headed in the right direction?

N = 7,882 Margin of Error +/- 1.5%
…….. Yes …… No …. Undecided
Dem …. 4.0% …. 92.0% …. 3.9%
Ind …. 19.8% …. 71.9% …. 8.3%
Rep …. 58.3% …. 28.8% …. 12.8%

Overall Percentages:
28.2% believe the economy is headed in the right direction
63.3% do not…
8.5% are undecided
_________________________________________

I hope Third parties and Independents are paying attention to this. Voters may be gettin’ fed up with both parties. I surely hope we don’t just keep lettin’ the two main parties take turns usin’ and abusin’ the nation.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 18, 2005 04:18 PM

David
“And they need to raise taxes on those who will not suffer from the increases, and convince those special interests to do what’s best for their country as well”

Those who will not “suffer” make up the majority of voters. If a politician wants to keep his votes, he must convince his voters that Washington is serious or they will not support more pay cuts.
Special interests are only concerned with their personal interest and it comes before everything else.

Posted by: kctim at October 18, 2005 04:32 PM

“yours, kctim, is just as unrealistic”

Why?
Nothing will get done if politicians are afraid of losing their voters.
If they lead by example, then maybe they could scam another pay cut onto the people without a backlash at the polls.

Posted by: kctim at October 18, 2005 04:35 PM

There’s so much waste in government, it would be easy to cut about $500 billion out of the annual budget without adversely affecting the economy (in fact, it would probably help the economy). For one thing, start with this list. We don’t need all of that.

The government has grown so huge, there are litterally thousands of places to cut waste. Start with all the pork-barrel ( www.cagw.org ), and then cut useless departments (like the Energy Department and the Bureau of Economic Analysis…since they obviously don’t know what they’re doing). Then cut salaries of Congress, and the Executive Branch.
Then cut the numerous unnecessary commissions, committees, and some of the gang of over two million in the Executive branch (that is neither seen nor heard as it throttles our freedoms and prosperity), and the hundreds of thousands employees employed by the 435 in Congress.
Then cut the bribes going to N. Korea, and other countries. Cut all of the spending used to other countries used to control those countries.
Then fix the tax system. But, never, never raise taxes. Government already gets 19% of GDP and it should be reduced to 15%. The federal government has grown to such nightmare proportions, there are thousands of places to cut waste and unnecessary, useless, crap that adds no net benefit to society. Government employs more people than all manufacturing jobs in the U.S. Duuhhhhh ! Cut spending ! Don’t ever fall for the ploy that we need to raise taxes. For Pete’s sake ! They are already getting $2.2 trillion per year ! That’s over 19% of GDP ! They don’t need more money ! That’s like giving alcohol to a alcoholic ! Please, repeat after George Herbert Walker Bush:
READ MY LIPS !
NO NEW TAXES !
NO NEW TAXES !
NO NEW TAXES !

New Mantra:
PLEASE CUT SPENDING AND BORROWING AND STOP BANKRUPTING THE NATION !
PLEASE STOP GROWING GOVERNMENT EVER LARGER !
PLEASE STOP GIVING TAX CUTS TO THE RICH !
PLEASE FIX THE STUPID TAX SYSTEM !
PLEASE STOP THE PORK-BARREL and WASTE !
PLEASE STOP PLUNDERING THE ENTITLEMENT SYSTEMS !
PLEASE STOP STARTING WARS BASED ON BAD INFORMATION !
PLEASE STOP ALIENATING OUR ALLIES !
PLEASE STOP VOTING YOURSELVES RAISES, UNTIL YOU DO SOMETHING TO DESERVE IT !
PLEASE STOP PEDDLING INFLUENCE - GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE FOR SALE !
PLEASE STOP ELECTION FRAUD !
PLEASE STOP CAMPAIGN FINANCE FRAUD !
PLEASE STOP BLOCKING ACCESS OF 3rd PARTIES and INDEPENDENTS TO BALLOTS, DEBATES, AND THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS !
PLEASE STOP PANDERING !
PLEASE STOP IGNORING OUR OPEN BORDERS AND CALLING THE MINUTE MEN VIGILANTES !
PLEASE STOP IGNORING ALL VOTERS EXCEPT THE 10% of THE POPULATION WITH 79% OF ALL WEALTH !
PLEASE STOP BEING ARROGANT, IRRESPONSIBLE, AND UNACCOUNTABLE !
PLEASE STOP USIN’ and ABUSIN’ THE PEOPLE !
PLEASE GET SOME #@!%^*$ BACKBONE AND START GOVERNING RESPONSIBLY !

Otherwise, we’re gonna all march on D.C. and beat the crap out of all you crooked, bought-and-paid-for pieces of @#$!@#$!

Or, a more peaceful approach: Vote ‘em all out…vote only for non-incumbents.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 18, 2005 06:06 PM

kctim-
Pay cut? Well, if you’re going to engage in cute wordplay, why don’t I call your tax cuts what they really are: An investment in our competition. The people buying the debt from your wonderful little “pay raises” are the people taking our jobs away!

Which I might call the ultimate pay cut, but then it might get confused with the fiscally sound raising of taxes. God, when did you guys get so rigid-minded about this? Probably every president who has lowered taxes has raised them again, including your hero Reagan, who did it three times.

Why? Because tax cuts by themselves are not a fiscal policy. They are a good thing sometimes, but used all the time, they create debt, create inflation, and make it more difficult to borrow money where its needed.

This administration has been absolutely cowardly about taking responsibility for the nation’s finances, and worse has lead the American people to be phobic about sensible finances to. After 9/11, was Bush calling for Americans to sacrifice, live within their means, keep themselves financially solvent? No. he encourage a record explosion of debt-financed spending.

I’m sick and tired of this, sick and tired of being surrounded by debt. Truth is, if we’ve spent ourselves this much into the hole, we’re not back on our feet like the president has said, and all gains we have are ephemeral.

Call things what they are and reject this culture of euphemism, irresponsibility, and impracticality. Assume that in your life that you have to give something up to call yourself a citizen of the home of the free and the land of the brave, that freedom, literally, is not free. You don’t have to let the tax burden explode recklessly, but for heaven’s sake admit that that you have to pay some price for living here.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 18, 2005 06:11 PM

d.a.n.
Take the word please out of your list and it’ll be perfect.
As taxpayers we have a right to demand thoes things out of our elected officials. There’s NO WAY we should have to ask or beg for them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 18, 2005 06:19 PM

Right Ron. How about ending each one with: OR ELSE !

Posted by: d.a.n at October 18, 2005 06:25 PM

VERY GOOD IDEA d.a.n !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 18, 2005 07:06 PM

Stephen,

The tax cuts are NOT what is driving up the borrowing and debt. People need to stop getting those confused.

The debt and borrowing is because the federal government is constantly fattening itself up, aquiring more power and spending more and more money. A lot of the money they do spend is for gaining more power, not helping anyone. Do you REALLY think that thevernmental aid programs are getting to the people they need to get to at the most economical way? The mindless beauracracy that our tax dollar has to go through (the myriad of hands that each dollar has to touch, getting their piece of our pie) is staggering and growing each and every year.

And this president hasn’t had the backbone to veto one single bill, send back one single budget.

It’s a damn shame when the republicans act like the democrats and the democrats see their own game being played against them and NOW cry foul. Only their response is to try to play the game MORE, taking MORE of our money to build up MORE power.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 18, 2005 08:00 PM

Rhinehold-
Maybe in your philosophical notion of things, tax cuts aren’t the problem, but from an objective point of view, it’s hairsplitting- whether you call it over-spending or under-financing, it amounts to one thing: We don’t have the revenue to cover our costs of government. The largest part of what’s eating up that revenue is the tax cuts. Go figure, people might think the tax cuts are driving up the deficit.

As for Bureaucracy, sit down for a moment and consider this: We live in a country of 290 million souls, with fifty states, tens of thousands of municipalities, and a society more technologically advanced than anything its founders could have imagined. Bureaucracy can be problematic, but it’s also necessary, when the size and complexity of a nation reaches that of ours. It’s a Goldilocks thing: put too many middlemen in the process, and it slows down. Put too few, and you overwork your bureaucrats, and that reduces efficiency as well. The key is to strike a balance, not to try and force one on a system that won’t function your way.

My response is not principly to take your money. I’m a taxpayer too. My reponse is that I’d rather present you with the bill than quietly raise a mounting tab in your name.

I think you’re rational enough to realize that at heart I’m very much the fiscal conservative. We should pay for what we spend. If we’re not willing or able to reduce spending fairly quickly, that means raising taxes, something I wouldn’t approve of being the perpetual solution.

I just think y’all are being idealists about spending cuts and tax cuts, and you’re failing to confront the real problem, because it’s become so ingrained in your minds that this economy needs tax cuts to prosper. Unfortunately, you’re spending away your future prosperity to avoid damaging the current. Will we have the prosperity to spare when the time comes? That’s a gamble I’m too old fashion about fiscal matters to make.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 18, 2005 10:02 PM

Yes, I’ll say it. If it wasn’t GeeDubya’s
tax cuts that wiped out {Gasp!} Clinton’s big old
surplus what the hell was it? And please don’t
drag out the Twin Towers and Katrina and the
“war on terrorism”. We don’t buy that anymore.

Posted by: Disgusted in GA at October 18, 2005 10:33 PM

Disgusted,

You should take a second look at ‘Clinton’s surplus’, it wasn’t what you think it was…

Stephen,

Ok, how much of the government’s should the american citizen be allowed to keep then? 50%? 20%? Just enough to get by with the government keeping the rest to make sure everyone is making the same?

The more money that the government sucks up into their pork projects and powergrabbing, the less money is in the actual economy to earn profits for the american people. Yes, there is a certain amount of money that the government needs to function on, but it should take that and NO MORE. Right now we are funding way too many programs that do no good for anyone and are in place just to pay back contributors and keep politicians in power. This country once worked without an ‘income’ tax. In fact, it was only allowed to exist by a constitutional amendment less than 100 years ago. And at the time, it was determined that no limit needed to be put in because, as one person at the time put it, ‘if we tried to raise the income tax above 1% the american people would lynch us’.

I guess he underestemated the sheepishness that the citizens of the United States would turn towards…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 19, 2005 12:12 AM

Rhinehold-
How much are we willing to pay? That’s the real question. It’s our government, and the sooner we take ownership of it, rather than dealing with it as if it’s some bizarre space invader, the sooner we get more responsible.

The ugly truth is that people let the government spend, because often it gets spent on them. Jobs, benefits, entitlements- these things get bigger because people want them, and your tax cuts make it far easier to want them.

As long as we fail to match taxes to the price of government, we fail to give people the incentive to be concerned about what they are paying for. Tell people: you want a tax cuts, we’ll cut waste, and you’ll tell us as a country what you can live without.

Any other way, and taxpayers don’t have to make the choice.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2005 12:31 AM

tax increases equal pay cuts?

Interestingly enough, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever seeing millionaires taking a pay cut.

Posted by: Thom Houts at October 19, 2005 05:16 AM

The fiscal mess this country’s in right now makes a balanced budget amendment look pretty good right now. I used to think such an amendment was not necessary. However, after seeing how politicians of both major parties are spineless in regards to fiscal matters, I’m thinking that such an amendment might be our only hope. I shudder to think of the economic straits we’ll be in when all the bills come due—or whenever the baby boom retires, whichever comes first.

Posted by: J. R. Milks at October 19, 2005 08:58 AM

Let’s face it gang, our government is broken and we can’t do a thing about it! At least until we get rid of all the K-Street bunch that really run the country. And we didn’t even get a chance to vote for the K-Street gang.

The GOP has trashed our economy. Who else can turn billions in surplus to trillions in deficit in only 4 years! The GOP, thats who.

Fix the tax system? I say abolish the tax system and implement the Fair Tax system. You will never be able to have a fair tax code until you eliminate the current system. It was created to help the rich gain ever more riches on the back of the middle class. And the middle clas is on the verge of rebellion against an incompetent government.

It’s time for the people to take back the country. After all, it is suppose to be a government for the people, by the people and not for the corporations by he corporations. Last time I looked a corporation is not a living being and cannot vote for national office. Only a human can do that!

It is time for the people to rise up and take control.

Posted by: Richard at October 19, 2005 09:21 AM

SD
“God, when did you guys get so rigid-minded about this?”

That is why you cannot or will not see both sides of this issue. You are making it a left vs right thing and I was not.
Read my first posts again. I didnt even mention this as a left or right thing. I simply said that if politicians expect the people to accept their pay cuts, then the politicians themselves are going to have to lead by example or suffer at the polls.
I said nothing of how unfair taxes are, the ridiculous programs they are wasted on or how they are used to force a belief onto others.
I was only trying to be openminded and look at it from what I think politicians should do first angle.

Posted by: kctim at October 19, 2005 09:22 AM

OK! Republicans blew it, and voters can see that now, but, I have yet to hear a single Democrat foster a balanced budget plan.

David, that’s totally untrue. You know damned well we have legislation that Republicans are ignoring to reinstate the pay-as-you-go rule and stop fast tracking any legislation that would increase the deficit.

The tax cuts are NOT what is driving up the borrowing and debt.

Yeah, Rhinehold, they really are. Somebody even put up a pie chart recently that made it very clear.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 19, 2005 09:34 AM

Stephen,

With all due respect I do not think you could be more wrong about this… Repealing the tax cuts will only lead to this government spending that money also. You can’t throw money at this problem because lack of funding is not the issue. Overspending is. That is Rhineold’s point IMO.

This is like a parent who’s 30 year old child has always come to them for money when they screw up and can’t pay the credit card bills that they have racked up. And the parent has always bailed them out without making them pay the money back to anyone. The child begins to understand that no matter what, mom and dad will bail them out, and because of this the child never learns to budget, save, etc… And why should they? The enabler parent will always provide what they need. Now, should the parent let the child starve and become homeless? Of course not. But should they pay their credit card bills for them so that they can continue to live their life as if they never existed? Absolutly not!

Under your ideal the American taxpayers have become that enabler parent, and the 30 year old child the Government. Is anyone saying that we should not pay any taxes, effectivly letting the government starve? Of course not. But are we as “parents” deciding that, instead of just paying them the money to “help them out” we are right in demanding that they cut up their cards (Reduce spending) before we just go handing them more amd more money? Absolutly.

I think people would be a bit more forthcoming with paying taxes if they felt that they were actually going to a government that was managing them correctly.

Posted by: BradM at October 19, 2005 09:37 AM

I say abolish the tax system and implement the Fair Tax system. You will never be able to have a fair tax code until you eliminate the current system.

Richard, Absolutly! I could not agree more. Along with many other reasons, getting rid of the K street lobyists (as the Fair Tax would) is probably the best thing that could happen to our national government at this point. Get rid of them and you will get rid of a lot of special interest spending. The politicians may actually be controlled by the people again instead of the lobyists.

Posted by: BradM at October 19, 2005 10:04 AM

The government owns the printing presses. They dont have to balance anything.

Nobody knows how much of a deficit is too much and we wont know until well after that point is reached. For some reason, economists aren’t smart enough to figure it out.

Posted by: Ms Schwamp at October 19, 2005 10:15 AM

Some economists know.
There are an increasing number of economists that are starting to raise red flags about the direction of the nation.

www.speaking.com/speakers/harrydentjr.html

www.s-a-f-e.org/generational_storm.htm

Here are two tax system solutions I’d support.
I prefer (a) to (b), but either would be better than what we have now.

(a) would be easier to adjust to, because it would require the least change.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 19, 2005 10:36 AM

Interesting discussions…pro and con. I am not smart enough to argue for the benefits or the downsides to large deficits or how much of a deficit we can handle. My gut tells me they are bad and will create incredible downstream financial woes. Realistic spending cuts will only gain a modest amount of traction toward lowering the deficit levels that are growing today. And politcal will goes only so far with turning off the spending spigot. Basically I know we are borrowing huge amounts of money and paying ever increasing amounts of money toward the interest to service this debt…much of this money I think is owed to Japan, China and others who are propping up our economy.

If we can not calculate and explain the fiscal basis for each spending program, and the likely outcomes (how it will impact millions of American citizens) if we change this basis, we can not even begin to wrestle with the issue of increasing taxes to anyone’s satisfaction. Everything comes down to a choice or a tradeoff with many, many downstream impacts. For example cut Medicare entitlements and force more elderly people to pay higher out-of-pocket healthcare expenses from fixed income savings accounts and you end up with what? Greater numbers of bankrupt citizens who will no longer be buying other basic goods and services. This will result in higher prices and loss of jobs downstream for other segments of our population. It is all connected. And when you cut federal programs because we have fewer federal tax dollars to support them, magically, state and local taxes, sales taxes, and other forms of revenue producing “tricks” fill in the void…there is no free lunch. We just shift the burdens yet again.

Posted by: Bill at October 19, 2005 11:04 AM

Approximately 20% of the federal budget is comprised of grants and cooperative agreements going back to state, local, and non-profit organizations. That’s because grants are the absolute best way to circumvent the constitution and infringe on the 10th amendment.

I will not support another dime of federal taxes until those programs, and their HUGE overhead structures, are completely eliminated. End of story…

Posted by: George in SC at October 19, 2005 11:25 AM

J.R. Milks-
I don’t think a balanced budget amendment is a good idea any more than a permanent tax cut policy. Neither allows us the flexibility we need in our current times.

I recognize that sometimes there’s no avoiding a deficit. I also recognize that some times you have to bite the bullet and raise taxes. Neither is the most desireable option, but they have to be options, or otherwise we lose potential solutions to problems we face.

I think we must stiffen our own spines before we stiffen theres. We must get in our politician’s faces about this problem, because this should not be business as usual.

Richard-
The Lobbyists can only ply their influence to the extent that the politicians understand they can get away with things. If we keep informed, and don’t let things slide, we can make the legislator who gets into bed with lobbyists very uncomfortable. We are the final determinants of who gets in and who stays in. We can either choose to exercise this power in name only, or we can exercise it confident in our ability to make a difference. The last thing we need to believe is that we are powerless, because that’s the easiest way to convince us we don’t have the power.

As for the fair tax code? It’s regressive. As your income rises, the percentage of that income you need to survive goes down. Sales taxes increase the amount one needs to survive, which hurts the middle class and poor first.

The reality is, the progressive tax system actually takes less income from you than the top rate implies. Each bracket down from your top bracket is taxed at a lower percentage. Naturally, adding together this descending series of fractions from the top rate you owe on is going to produce less of a liability than taking a simple percentage at that rate. The Conservatives deliberately oversimply what is a complex but actually cheaper system because they want to give tax cuts to the upper class.

kctim-
If you are so open minded, why are tax hikes always off the table? I don’t rule out tax cuts, when the time is right. I don’t even rule out the shrinking of government, if that’s what Americans want. It folks like you who are taking options off the table before the discussion is even possible.

BradM-
Overspending? But it wouldn’t be overspending if we hadn’t had had the tax cuts! It’s shortsighted to say that it’s merely overspending, when much of this deficit would have never occured in the first place without the tax cuts. That’s what makes the Republican point of view on this so damn irresponsible- they make no connection between their behavior then, and the problems they have now.

Y’all are trying to argue limited government. Fine. Argue it with people aware and wide awake about what they’re spending, and this country not going further into debt. This isn’t some government deposited by an alien spaceship in Washington, D.C.. This is our government- hell, this is us! WE are spending and overspending, and underpaying. WE are the ones failing to put the money into the system to pay for all these wonderful things we’d like to have.

It doesn’t matter whether that this happens at proxy, through our elected representatives. We Americans are responsible for who we put in there. Let’s send the message, the strong message that we’re not satisfied.

The tax policy is not a result of a bad government here, it the result of an irresponsible public. And, no, we Democrats are not doing much better on this account. We all need to change.

Ms. Schwamp-
If the Government prints money to pay the debt, it’s called Monetizing it, and the result is a drop in our dollar’s value. That’s inflation.

As to how much debt is too much, it is a complex question, because our economy itself is complex. One thing for sure, though: Every time this government has spent into a deficite for a long time, the result has been economic hard times when the bill came due. The Seventies were payment for Vietnam and the Great Society, and Johnson’s refusal to raise the taxes necessary to cover it. The early nineties came about because of Reagan’s deficits. A good book to read in terms of this is The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind. If anybody thinks our current deficits are here just because, they should read that book. There’s a reason Paul O’Neill is no longer Treasury Secretary.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2005 11:30 AM

Stephen

You obviously have not read the material on the fair tax. I suggest you read the book on fair taxes. Any tax is regressive, but we do have to fund government to do the things that keep the country together. I would certainly love to see the fair tax implemented. It is still far better than the horrendous system we currently have.

Posted by: Richard at October 19, 2005 11:49 AM

Interestingly enough, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever seeing millionaires taking a pay cut.

This is exactly what I hate about the democratic party. Not ‘hey, we need X so we are willing, as a country, to do with Y’. It’s, ‘hey, those jackass millionaires have more than I do and I want some of it’.

When the democratic party gets beyond the class warfare that has been their bread and butter for the past 3 decades then this country might start moving in a better direction. It’s not the government’s job to make sure everyone is taken care of, it’s the individual’s job. Focusing our domestic policy on one of envy and greed, on both sides, only plays into the hands of the powergrabbing politicians who will continue to play us at each other while laughing themselves to the bank.

Get over the envy, look objectively at what the government is spending money on and evaluate better, more effective ways of resolving those issues. For example:

Local control of education. Local communities have a much better grasp on what their local needs for education are. Quit dictating to them with their own money how to teach their children (which hasn’t been working since we started trying it)

Local control of aid to the less fortunate. Local communities have a much better grasp on who is in need of help and who is leeching from the system. Quit making entitlements what AREN’T and put in local programs that actually help people.

End prohibition of recreational drugs and put programs in place to help those who have a problem with self control. By criminalizing drug use we sweep the problem under the rug and spend billions of dollars on trying to block the underground community from getting them, the community we create by making illegal in the first place. The people who abuse the drugs are in need of help, not criminalization, and it makes us hypocrites for making some drugs illegal and others not. We need to learn from our past mistakes regarding prohibition and work towards a better solution.

Eliminate all pork and spending that is not necessary. Why are we buliding bridges in places where there is no need for, and using a hurricane relief bill that is designed to help those thousands of miles away to do it? Make the bills focus only on what it is for and make them readable by everyone, not thousands upon thousands of pages long. If the ‘rider’ is not about the topic of the bill it should be an illegal law.

If we do those simple things, and there is more we could talk about, we could keep our taxes where they are and actually move forward on elminiating our deficit. And they aren’t hard things to do, they’re actually things we SHOULD be doing.

Stephen, I agree that there is a price for government, but when it is in the hands of the federal government over the local then it comes with a price of not being able to oversee and control it as well as we can with our local governments.

How many people even know the names of the local and state representatives? Shouldn’t we know that more than our federal ones? Since when did we start ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments and start allowing our federal government to act like our local ones? Why do we even have state lines anymore? Should someone representing California really have any say as to how people from North Carolina teach their children or take care of their poor? What do people in California even know about the needs of the people thousands of miles away?

The direction of the government, at the hands of the democrats and republicans, is about gaining and keeping power and centeralizing even more power under their control. It’s a joke and we as Americans should be appaled at what we’ve turned this country into.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 19, 2005 11:59 AM

That fact is, with few exceptions, what government does now, won’t have a large impact for years (often decades later, even 50 years later). This is why it could be too late. The system has inertia. And this is a large nation.

We once had a larger National Debt (after World War 2), but we were a smaller nation, we also had incredible growth, manufacturing, and economic advantages that other war-ravaged nations didn’t have following the war.
Also, we didn’t have as many problems as we do now.

This time it is different. We are more vulnerable this time. And, we are not as fiscally and morally responsible either.
Some economists are now predicting a significant down-turn around 2010. There are several good books about the numerous reasons.
And, then, there’s history, if you believe in such cycles:

Provide a Link for your Image, as it creates problems for formatting the comments window- Contributing Editor

There’s always some nut cases running around predicting the end of the world, or the next great depression, but it’s not hard now to see it actually happening, based on the facts presented by these writers and econommists:

www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/862477/posts
www.s-a-f-e.org/generational_storm.htm
www.speaking.com/speakers/harrydentjr.html
www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251
www.richdad.com/pages/article_dollar_crisis_part2.asp
www.sowpub.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/read/10285

Also, Economist Harry S. Dent has been successful in predicting other market trends in the past, so even if we don’t believe him, we should at least entertain the possibility that he may be right again.

Personally, I think there are 25 serious problems facing the nation, but there are 5 items that are most likely to culminate to create a perfect storm, maginfy all of the 25 serious problems, and lead to a significant economic down-turn:

[1] energy shortages;
[2] $8 to $10 trillion National Debt, and $1.6 trillion shortfalls in pensions; and the resulting inflation (falling dollar) that will result from that fiscal irresponsibility;
[3] an aging population, growing poorer in retirement, and looming shortfalls in huge entitlement systems (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) that continue to be plundered;
[4] increasingly unaffordable and unreliable health-care
[5] declining quality and growing cost of public education; and our decreasing ability to compete in the world;

Posted by: d.a.n at October 19, 2005 12:31 PM

IMAGE: http://home.comcast.net/~d.a.n/The80YearCycle.gif

Posted by: d.a.n at October 19, 2005 12:51 PM

The direction of the government, at the hands of the democrats and republicans, is about gaining and keeping power and centeralizing even more power under their control. It’s a joke and we as Americans should be appaled at what we’ve turned this country into.

You’re absolutely correct. We’re all really responsible. We should do something about it. Posted by: d.a.n at October 19, 2005 01:23 PM

“If you are so open minded, why are tax hikes always off the table?”

“It folks like you who are taking options off the table before the discussion is even possible”

Because govt officials have NOT proven they can spend tax money wisely.
You talked about how its “our duty” to pay taxes, well maybe the majority of people see that we pay too much and are sick and tired of seeing it wasted. Maybe thats why people dont want even more pay cuts.
Its time for govt to take the lead and show us that they are serious.
You can dwell on blaming Bush, Republicans or whatever. But until govt quits wasting money to buy votes or favors, I dont think working people will agree with you.

Posted by: kctim at October 19, 2005 01:33 PM

Because govt officials have NOT proven they can spend tax money wisely.

No !##$^% kidding ! It’s like giving alcohol to an alcoholic. Besides, isn’t $2.2 trillion (19% of GDP) enough ? Damn right it is. In fact, it should be only $1.8 trillion (15% of GDP) or less.

You know the people got a bad case of brain-washing if they think we need tax increases.
If the government is going to do anything with the tax system, they should fix it, because what we’ve got now is ridiculous, abused, and unfair.

Its time for govt to take the lead and show us that they are serious.

Yes, but I don’t think government will reform itself. The government has perverted the system to the point that they can do what ever they want, be blatantly irresponsible, and unaccountable. It’s up to the voters now. It can happen peacefully (the smart way), or (much later) not so peacefully (the hard way). But it will happen some day. It’s up to the people. What ever happens, we will all have ourselves to thank for it. Posted by: d.a.n at October 19, 2005 02:04 PM

Overspending? But it wouldn’t be overspending if we hadn’t had had the tax cuts! It’s shortsighted to say that it’s merely overspending, when much of this deficit would have never occured in the first place without the tax cuts.

I’m sorry Stephen but that logic does not fly with me. Yes, not having the tax cuts would have resulted in more money being in the bank for the government to use. But what would they do with those extra funds? Recent history has shown that it would probably be spent on additional pork. Perhaps some of it would have helped to make the deficit smaller, but no one can tell me that for sure. I’d rather not take your word for it that if the tax had never taken place that the government would have suddenly become fiscally responsible with that money.

By overspending I mean the blatent misuse of our tax dollars on pork projects, inflated governmental agencies budgets, etc… Things that we as taxpayers should not have been paying for to begin with our hard earned money. If this fat was trimmed then we may have had the money to pay for the unexpected things such as Katrina relief. Again, repealing the tax cuts does not solve the real problem, it just provides an already fiscally irresponsible government more money to be irresponsible with.

If you are so excited about giving money then by all means send in extra with your tax payments or don’t cash your “tax return” this year. That way you can feel like you are making an additional contribution to “pay for all these wonderful things” that you feel are so important.

Look, if I was the one messing up then I would expect that I should be the one to change. But I’m not. I pay my taxes, exactly as they request. They know what their budgets should be, and yet they have chosen to continue to throw money at pork and special interest. The government is the one that has and is continuing to make bad choices with the money I already send them. I refuse to accept that if I were to send more now they would see the error of their ways and shape up. It seems very nieve to think that way IMO.

Posted by: BradM at October 19, 2005 02:13 PM

Richard-
Because our current income tax system taxes in brackets, with each bracket

a)covering a progressively higher segment of the individuals income, and

b) each segment being taxed at a higher rate than the last,

it is by definition progressive. This is not progression or regression as defined by people’s ideas about progress.

Your Fair Tax, if it’s Neil Boortz’s flat tax, is a regressive tax in that it does not lower its rate as income falls. Because of that, the tax puts greater amounts of the tax burden on the middle and lower classes.

I wonder if you know what Boortz’s attitude towards the poor really is.

Rhinehold-
Education is already locally controlled, as far as Bush has let it be. As far as aid to to less fortunate, what you you gain in locality, you may lose in economies of scale and centralized rules and regulation. As it is, in Texas, Social Security offices here have made it difficult to get disability even for those with obvious medical problems requiring it.

Recreational drugs aren’t as fun as you think. These are generally pretty strong substances, and they strike very strongly at the parts of the brain that deal with motivation. People’s personalities change under the influences of these drugs, and their lives become centered on these drugs. They deserve the kind of legal control they are under. That said, treatment is the better option than mandatory jail time, because in essence, this is a medical problem.

Eliminating pork is of course a good idea.

I think we share much more in common regarding our lives than we once did. The suburban culture that has developed transcends the distances that once separated communities. A/C has made life in my neck of the woods comparable to life in the north and elsewhere; we watch much the same shows here as there, and listen to much the same music. We’re a different, more unified society.

We should know our representatives better, to be sure. Locals should have control over their affairs more than people far off. But again we are confronted with a truth that at its basis forms the foundation of cause for our constitution: we’re different here, but not totally different. Biologically, mentally, scientifically, we’re much the same. The differences, though profound, are small, and therefore the wisdom of what is right for one set of people fits others.

For me, there is a balance to be struck. I know it’s tempting to state that the other side’s idea of things escapes from the orbit of the rational, but the reality is, there is a balance to be struck, and in the newer, more close knit America, it’s more towards centralized government than localized. Still, there are limits, but I think it’s better to go case by case on those, rather than generalize.

kctim-
It the duty of a citizen to pay for the government they elect. If you are sick of the bad government, kick out the bastards who are failing to do their jobs, but don’t complain about their misuse of your tax dollars unless you are willing to punish the officials themselves for that. I blame Bush and the GOP because pushing this legislation was his idea, and I don’t need to go far to prove it.

The government that wastes this money is the government whose leader you support on this issue. At some point, you will have to reconcile the notion that the governments wasting your money with the people who are actually in charge of it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2005 02:20 PM

BradM-
Your view is shortsighted. You look at the pork as if it were inevitable, when there were strong inhibitions before the tax cut to anybody crossing that line. We were still going on pay-as-you-go. Only after we went into deficit was the Rubicon crossed. But hey, that would make the Republicans responsible for the mess, not “the nature of government itself”.

This pessimism about government is the mother of the permissiveness regarding your party and spending. Reagan overspent, Bush 41 did, and this president and his Congress does. Why? Because they don’t take the initiative to keep costs down. Why stand in the way of the inevitable.

I understand what overspending is, but the fact of the matter is, as much as you would like to try an persuade these people not to overspend, they’ll keep on doing it because there’s no threshold they cross that they can be blamed for. You’re just not wanting to consider that tax hikes would be a necessary (though unfortunate) solution to the problem.

What gives you the right to complain about overspending? You won’t admit that people and not just tendencies are the ones overspending this money. You use it as an excuse not to consider that the tax cuts have contributed to the hole we are in.

I mean, our congress, our senate and our president consciously decided to take in less revenue, and you tell me that this conscious decision in the face of evidence that it would send us into deficit doesn’t count as a contributing factor to our fiscal crisis?

Maybe we should do away with taxes altogether, and blame that shadowy “they” of a government for overspending. That would be greatly preferable to admitting that Republican administration and legislature both failed to balance the books, given the power. That would mean actually assigning responsibility to the people you are taught to be such loyal defenders of. Sad thing, really.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2005 02:33 PM

Stephen,

And I thought we were making ground…

First of all, trying to equate what Neil said about ‘saving the rich first’ to equate that he doesn’t care about poor people is a leap and moronic. I’m surprised you included it, it’s tacky and cheap. But what else can you expect from a party that is more upset that the right is outsleasing them than what is right for the country.

Secondly, the fair tax ensures that the poor pay no taxes at all except if they buy something that is not a necessity. I’m not sure how that is ‘regressive’ other than by people who think it’s ok that they pay hidden taxes on necessities as they do now.

As for legalizing drugs, I guess I don’t understand how many of the drugs that we outlaw are any worse for you than alcohol and cigarettes. It would be one thing if we had the balls to outlaw them as well for the same reason, but to by hypocritical is amazingly silly. The money we get by taxing cigarettes and alcohol helps pay for the treatment for those that can’t use them responsibly. The fact is that many can. Just as many can use other substances just as responsibly. When we push their use underground people get dangerous versions of the drug, as they did during prohibition, and the people who run these underground societies, pushing the illegal drugs, end up becoming rich and powerful, safe from prosecution while still selling it to those who can’t get any treatment for their addictions now, just like prohibition.

Yes, I know what kinds of drugs are out there and I think there are some limits we can put in place. But I can name several ‘illegal drugs’ that are less harmful to a person than alcohol and tobacco, but we keep up the hypocrisy instead of dealing with the issue, which is the number of people who have addictive personalities and will abuse the recreational drugs to the detrement of themselves. And while we keep them illegal we will almost never find out who these people are without it being far to late to do anything about it while spending valuable resources in money and time police could be protecting us from dangrous people instead.

For example, there is a problem with meth in this country. The response in Indiana? Well, now we can’t purchase Nyquil without going to the pharmicist and signing a form that will be used to track how much ephedrine you use in a week. The limit is actually very low and if you have two children and a need for more than the allotted amount you are going to have to try to ‘score’ some somewhere else.

SO they’ve taken the nyquil from the shelves and made more room to sell the alochol in it’s place.

What a wonderfully stupid insane country we live in.

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 19, 2005 04:10 PM

BradM,
Your absolutely right. You’re paying taxes.
It’s the federal government that is irresponsible. It’s now up to us to oust that irresponsible government.

Stephen Daugherty,
Sorry, but arguing to increase taxes when the federal government is already raking in a staggering $2.2 trillion per year (that’s 19% of GDP for Pete’s sake !), is truly akin to giving alcohol to an alcoholic.

You know all that pork-barrel isn’t going back to the voters. It’s full of graft, kick-backs, and political pay-offs. And, it’s not just the corruption that costs so much. It’s all of this. We don’t need all of that. Much of it is dead weight, and isn’t providing any net benefit to society.

Besides, even if taxes are raised, will government suddenly become more responsible? Of course not. Not based on track record. Afterall, the National Debt has grown every year for the past 45 years.

And, people shouldn’t have to get to know their representatives better. Their representatives should simply be responsible. And if they aren’t, voters should recall them, or vote them out.

And, nobody is saying government can operate on nothing. Of course it’s folly to expect the government to operate without revenues. But, that’s not even remotely the problem, when the federal government is rakin’ in $2.2 trillion per year.

The problem is the fiscal and moral bankruptcy of the federal government, and the comlacent and apathetic voters that tolerate it. Not insufficient revenues via taxation.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 19, 2005 04:18 PM

Dan,

You’re right, of course.

It’s not that the democrats are better or worse than the republicans at spending tax revenue, it’s that they are both horribly inept because their main goal is acquiring, keeping and building power. Neither party is interested one single iota with doing the right thing, only what is right with thier party.

There are parties that are trying to live by a philosophy, a basic ideology, unlike the reps and dems. For example, the libertarians refuse matching funds for elections, the greens are truely interested in saving the planet, etc.

The problem is that the power that the two bigs have acquired allow them to convince the american voter, who is notoriously stupid about politics, that voting for anyone but them will be ‘throwing their vote away’. Nevermind principle, nevermind doing what’s right. Just vote for the party you hate least to keep the others out of office.

And people wonder why this country has been on a downward spiral the past 60 years…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 19, 2005 04:26 PM

Stephen Daugherty wrote:

kctim-
It the duty of a citizen to pay for the government they elect. If you are sick of the bad government, kick out the bastards who are failing to do their jobs, but don’t complain about their misuse of your tax dollars unless you are willing to punish the officials themselves for that.

Stephen, that’s exactly what I intend to do from now on, until we regain a balance of power between the government and the people, and government stops ignoring our many pressing problems.

I blame Bush and the GOP because pushing this legislation was his idea, and I don’t need to go far to prove it.

I blame Republicans and Democrats alike. They both did this together. Look at their voting records if you want proof of it. For the most part, both parties have done what they’ve done together, in unison. Posted by: d.a.n at October 19, 2005 04:26 PM

Rhinehold,

The problem is that the power that the two bigs have acquired allow them to convince the american voter, who is notoriously stupid about politics, that voting for anyone but them will be ‘throwing their vote away’. Nevermind principle, nevermind doing what’s right. Just vote for the party you hate least to keep the others out of office.

That’s sad, but true. That’s why we need to get this point across to all third parties and independents to unite, to spread the message to vote for non-incumbents, to finally have a voice in government, and get this nation back on the right path.

I agree that neither Democrats or Republicans give a $#!+ about the average tax payer. They even take great joy and delight in the fact that most voters are so bainwashed (and I admit I used to be one of them) that they think they’re wasting their vote by not voting for one or the other main-party bigots.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 19, 2005 04:32 PM

My wife doesn’t contribute to this blog but she reads it. And she DOES have her opinions.
She also has a memerory like a steel trap. I know she’s sprung it on me a few times.
Anyway as anyone knows that has been here any time at all, there are a lot of us that are tied of the courption of BOTH the major parties.
She reminded me of a small town of around 800 near one of the bases where we were stationed that had a mayor that makes Al Copone look like a Sunday School boy.
The mayor was up for reelection and for the first time in 15 years he had a cahllenger. Most the town folk were behind the challenger. Election day finially comes and the folks around town were sure they were finially rid of the crooked mayor.
Well the incumbant won the election by a vote of 950-0. But who says politicians are crooked?

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 19, 2005 06:28 PM

Rhinehold-
Neil Boortz is the guy who authored the Fair Tax Book. His attitudes towards the poor as evidenced by his quotes are quite obviously not that sympathetic. Would such a person have any qualms about “tax reform” that soaks the poor and middle class? I don’t consider it cheap to draw conclusions from a person’s recent comments to illustrate his current mindset. I consider it logical.

Additionally, this whole thing of necessities- This is not a subsistence, but a consumer economy. Taxes on consumption will only drive consumption down. Then where’s your economy?

As for Meth, Cocaine, heroin, and other drugs? When I was a kid, I was given ritalin under a prescription. That spurred an interest (one of those I tend to get on different subjects) in learning the science behind these drugs. In the years since, I can come to the following conclusions:

There is no such thing as recreational drug use, anymore than there is a such thing as recreational brain damage. Use of psychoactive chemicals of this strength tends to create permanent changes in the brain and the brain chemistry. Among those changes are changes to the motivation-related Dopamine centers of the brain, triggering the anticipatory cravings that make drug withdrawals so difficult.

Also complicating things is that drugs like Amphetamines and barbituates can cause seizures, convulsions and even death for those who simply drop the drugs.

This has to do with the balance of inhibitory and excitatory neural structures in the brain. The stimulants or depressants push users so far in one direction, chemically speaking, that their bodies counter that neurochemical imbalance with another imbalance that negates some of the effects. A depressant creates a counter response that excites, a stimulant creates one that inhibits. Result? The absence of the drug creates a critically out of balance state of brain chemistry, and rushes the person towards collapse.

Cocaine permanently lessens the brains ability to feel excitement and joy apart from its influence. Heroin leaves those who try to withdraw from it dealing with a painful, literally messy recovery, and they are permanently left with the craving for the drug. The supposedly safe LSD can create problems in the Serotonin circuits of the brain, that being the neurotransmitter which LSD most closely resembles. Many people report flashbacks years after their initial doses. Even Marijuana is not without its issues, as it is associated with memory problems, judgment problems, and a slowing of reaction time.

At the very least, these substances should be regulated, which many already are. The question is what kind of attitude to we take to defendents, and what kind of attitude do we take as a culture to drugs?

The problem is that they’ve been treated a cultural menace, rather than the public health issue they are.

Oh, by the way, it’s pseudoephedrine they’re tracking.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2005 07:56 PM

d.a.n.-
I’m not looking for instant results. The tax hike is to solve the practical problem of continual deficit spending, and bring us back into the position were we are sharply aware of when the spending starts to go wild. When your even, thirty billion in deficit spending is a lot worse than when you’re three hundred billion in deficit. Additionally, it’s easier to sell the notion of spending cuts to cover the territory of tax cuts when the spending cuts precede the tax cuts, and are paid for by it.

This insistence on constant tax-cutting makes trying to cut overspending futile. Why cut spending when your next tax cut’s removing the gain from that?

People must get to know their representatives. Our ignorance about what these people say and do only contributes to our problems in trying to get them to say and do things that represent our interests. You can’t argue against the apathy of voters and approve of their ignorance.

Rhinehold-
You treat the parties as if they’re monolithic. They’re not. Personnel and leaders can be changed out, cultures altered, and ethics and morality can be improved. There will always be the corrupt, the incompetent, and the ideologically overboard, but then, if we’re wise about how we approach it, there will always be the people to make sure they don’t get reelected.

If we keep them on their toes, it will be easier to keep our government from getting too many of the wrong kind of bright ideas.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2005 08:16 PM

d.a.n.- I’m not looking for instant results. The tax hike is to solve the practical problem of continual deficit spending, and bring us back into the position were we are sharply aware of when the spending starts to go wild. When your even, thirty billion in deficit spending is a lot worse than when you’re three hundred billion in deficit. Additionally, it’s easier to sell the notion of spending cuts to cover the territory of tax cuts when the spending cuts precede the tax cuts, and are paid for by it.

Stephen,
Try and try as hard as you can, but you’re not selling me on tax hikes at all. Like I keep sayin’ … raising taxes is like givin’ alcohol to alcoholics. And there is decades of track record to support that conclusion.

This insistence on constant tax-cutting makes trying to cut overspending futile. Why cut spending when your next tax cut’s removing the gain from that?

Spending cuts are what is needed, and there is ample places to cut spending. Please look to spending cuts, before asking for tax hikes. Like I said before, the federal government is already raking in $2.2 trillion a year. THAT’s ENOUGH !

People must get to know their representatives. Our ignorance about what these people say and do only contributes to our problems in trying to get them to say and do things that represent our interests. You can’t argue against the apathy of voters and approve of their ignorance.

Yes I can. We should be able to expect our government to have some small amount of a sense of responsibility and accountability.

All we need to know, which we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that they are not responsible and accountable.

Rhinehold- You treat the parties as if they’re monolithic. They’re not. Personnel and leaders can be changed out, cultures altered, and ethics and morality can be improved. There will always be the corrupt, the incompetent, and the ideologically overboard, but then, if we’re wise about how we approach it, there will always be the people to make sure they don’t get reelected.

Rhinehold, I seriously doubt you’re fallin’ for one itty bit of that. You know what’s going on. Unfortunately, Stephen, as much as I like him, doesn’t really grasp reality. He is young, and much more wise than I was at his age, but Stephen still doesn’t really see that both parties are slumin’ and usin’ and abusin’ the average voter.

If we keep them on their toes, it will be easier to keep our government from getting too many of the wrong kind of bright ideas.

Now, that’s something I do agree with. Never ignore government, because that invites abuse.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 19, 2005 09:22 PM

d.a.n.-
A person can function without alcohol. A government can’t function without funds. This isn’t fiscal detox, it’s budget bulimia, cutting a little bit, then spending a lot. Your solution is get anorexic, starve the government. neither is a healthy approach.

Pay As You Go. If you want it, get it, and count the cost. We should cut spending where it’s just waste, but we should be prepared to hold our noses and accept a tax hike if our cuts aren’t enough.

On the subect of apathy and ignorance, they go hand in hand. If it’s not part of what they know, experience, or at least imagine, it’s not something people will waste time reacting to.

This is my whole point about breaking these things even. It’s a figure ground things. If the debt is still just a deferred problem, people have little to react to. If the money isn’t theirs, it isn’t their problem.

The problem with this deficit is not the legislators in Washington, it’s the people in America who are unwilling to ask for spending cuts, yet unwilling to refuse tax cuts we know dig us deeper in debt. Why? Because the Bush administration is bribing us with free money. Tax hikes would end that. The dollars we spend would be the dollars that get yanked from our checks. People will be better motivated to slam Republicans and Democrats alike for excessive spending when the distance between the spending bill and our wallets is measured in months, not years or decades, when we can see the money flowing out. Only with Katrina has the price for the excess even begun to come clear, as the truth hits home: how will we pay for all this?

I say, we give people a straight answer to that: You will pay out of your own pocket. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the folks spending your money, and get together with your fellow voters to do something about it. This isn’t naivete, it’s the only way things get done.

I’m not naive about how people use us. I just think we should go ahead and use the fuckers right back. Ultimately, many of our party leaders are no more leaders than you or I are. They want to coast on our approval. I say make them work for it, and inch by inch, let the pressures of our attentions shape their agenda closer to ours. If the opportunity presents itself we push things even further.

Fact of the matter is, the parties are like the weather, dependent on and sensitive to the conditions that surround them- the attitudes of millions upon millions of voters. If somebody can shift the opinions of those people, then it only takes a few critical events to shift things in a radical new direction.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 19, 2005 10:56 PM

Here, let me help you Stephen. To see government from the perspective of the other side you must think of government as a corporation.

Pretend for a moment that Microsoft is the Federal Government and Bill Gates is the President. From a liberal perspective the price of software is outrageous because Microsoft is a monopoly and they’re overcharging everyone, right?

The real difference is that, unlike Microsoft, Government actually is a monopoly that is overcharging.

Your post is not the central issue of contention anyway. “The Tax Hike” you would propose is neither temporary nor trivial. The real issue is who decides your economic future. Who decides? You apparently believe that government is the proper place to make the economic decisions for all of us. In order to do this they need more money. More taxes. The money they get gives them power to control your life. You will not be shifting any opinions once they hold all the cards and we live within communal villages run by ‘the party’.

The problem with this deficit is not the legislators in Washington, it’s the people in America who are unwilling to ask for spending cuts, yet unwilling to refuse tax cuts we know dig us deeper in debt. Why? Because the Bush administration is bribing us with free money. Tax hikes would end that. The dollars we spend would be the dollars that get yanked from our checks. People will be better motivated to slam Republicans and Democrats alike for excessive spending…

Why choose tax hikes over spending cuts? Wouldn’t spending cuts solve the deficit problem? If you somehow have the political will to overcome the people’s unwillingness to refuse tax cuts, why don’t you have the political will to cut spending?

The answer is that your side does not want spending cuts. Only tax hikes. Which means we will work more and more for less and less and then have to go to the government for services we cannot afford. Do you see where I’m going with this?

Why in God’s name would anyone willingly create a condition of serfdom for themselves when they can be free?

Posted by: esimonson at October 20, 2005 12:42 AM

Johnson tried to create a “Great Society” and fight a war at the same time. The “Great Society” was well intentioned but ill conceived and was never going to work and certainly not in the middle of a war. That… is ancient history… but history has a way of repeating itself. Now Bush the Second is trying to create a “Great Society†for the rich - conceivably well intentioned – certainly ill conceived - and fight a war at the same time. It is never going to work… but we could debate that until the cows come home – it certainly is not going to work in the middle of a war.

The tax cut that that Bush the second gave to the rich was virtually exactly equal to the excess Social Security Payroll Taxes that are paid into the general fund mostly by middle class workers. Bush stole those funds for the rich and then used the fact that they were gone as a pretext to attack the security of Social Security for the middle class. Certainly some minor adjustments need to be made to Social Security, but Bush is certainly trying to manufacture a financial crisis in order to necessitate his right wing extremist agenda.

Many of the people commenting on this excellent article think that the solution is to just throw the bums out - both Republican and Democrat. That is really not realistic and even if it was the problem is more complicated than that. The problem is that the political process is corrupted and controlled by big money special interest. The Republicans and Democrats do have a virtual monopoly and you will not be able to throw them out unless you sell out to big money and then you would be just as corrupted. No one can win without money – no one gets money without selling out.

Posted by: Ray at October 20, 2005 01:05 AM

The answer is that your side does not want spending cuts.

That’s funny, eric, seeing as how Republicans just took food stamp and dairy subsidy cuts off the table because they’re facing some tough elections next year.

At least Democrats have a plan that would force automatic across-the-board cuts if spending went over budget and we want to reinstate the pay-as-you-go rule that got us the budget surplus in the 90s. You Republicans need to stop being so obstructionist and let Democrats balance the budget like we did last time.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 20, 2005 05:11 AM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n.- A person can function without alcohol. A government can’t function without funds. This isn’t fiscal detox, it’s budget bulimia, cutting a little bit, then spending a lot. Your solution is get anorexic, starve the government. neither is a healthy approach.

Stephen,
Above, I said it’s folly to expect government to operate without funding. ZERO funds is not the issue. On the contrary. 15% of GDP should be more than enough. But, it’s currently 19% of GDP, with additional irresponsible borrowing and spending. The amount of waste, graft, and misplaced priorities is staggering. You’ve got your work cut out for ya tryin’ to defend the excesses of the federal government.

Pay As You Go. If you want it, get it, and count the cost. We should cut spending where it’s just waste, but we should be prepared to hold our noses and accept a tax hike if our cuts aren’t enough.

No way. No more tax hikes. First, fix the stupid, abused, dysfunctional tax system. And, like I said, $2.2 trillion per year (19% of GDP) is way way more than enough. Try to find somebody else to agree with you, and some better reasons and get back to me, because I’m still not convinced tax hikes are needed…not when they are already getting $2.2 trillion ( 19% of GDP).

On the subect of apathy and ignorance, they go hand in hand. If it’s not part of what they know, experience, or at least imagine, it’s not something people will waste time reacting to.

I don’t know about that. I know intelligent people that are apathetic and complacent. They know government has run-amuck, and don’t know what to do about it (what they should do is vote non-incumbent).

This is my whole point about breaking these things even. It’s a figure ground things. If the debt is still just a deferred problem, people have little to react to. If the money isn’t theirs, it isn’t their problem.

Hmmmm…that’s a bit nebulous. What do you mean “if the money isn’t theirs” ? It is the tax payers money. And it is our problem (all of us). By the way, the debt is so large now, it would take 127 years to pay it down, and that’s only if government stops borrowing $1 billion per day, and starts paying back $1.01 billion per day (i.e. the payment must exceed interest, or it keeps growing larger).

The problem with this deficit is not the legislators in Washington, it’s the people in America who are unwilling to ask for spending cuts, yet unwilling to refuse tax cuts we know dig us deeper in debt. Why? Because the Bush administration is bribing us with free money.

Yes, the debt is the fault of government mostly. Sure, people (like children) ask for everything under the sun, but that doesn’t mean they should get anything they want. That’s why we need politicians with some backbone, and courage to do the right thing, and stop pandering.

Tax hikes would end that.

YIKES ! No Hikes ! Please, Stephen…stop asking for tax hikes. And please don’t let politicians hear or see you saying that. That kind of talk is worrisome. $2.2 trillion (19% of GDP) is too much already. Besides, the current government wouldn’t cut spending and pay down debt…giving them more money will make the problem worse!

The dollars we spend would be the dollars that get yanked from our checks.

No argument about that.

People will be better motivated to slam Republicans and Democrats alike for excessive spending when the distance between the spending bill and our wallets is measured in months, not years or decades, when we can see the money flowing out.

No. They get slammed all the time for spending and being irresponsible and unaccountable, and nothing changes. That’s why we need to vote non-incumbent. That will peacefully force a balance of power (not simply shift it) between the government and the people.

Only with Katrina has the price for the excess even begun to come clear, as the truth hits home: how will we pay for all this?

First of all, the tax payers shouldn’t have to foot the entire bill. And I don’t see why tax payers should have to continually bail out people that choose to live in flood zones. And, poverty isn’t the cause of that either. Besides, watch and see who gets the most funds. It won’t be the poor. Your right, the graft and waste will be amazing.

I say, we give people a straight answer to that: You will pay out of your own pocket. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the folks spending your money, and get together with your fellow voters to do something about it. This isn’t naivete, it’s the only way things get done.

I agree. Take it up with those spending the money. Vote non-incumbent, because nothing else is workin’ , and the Ds and Rs are just takin’ turns gettin’ theirs, votin’ on pork-barrel, graft, bribes, waste, and kick-backs. And even if they get caught, they get a pardon, and get to keep their multi-million dollar pen$sions funded by the tax payers.

I’m not naive about how people use us. I just think we should go ahead and use the fuckers right back.

Stephen ! I’ve never seen you use profanity before. But, I understand how you feel. But, I don’t advocate usery. Lets kick the bums out, start some recalls, and keep doing it until they start being responsible and accountable, and at the very minimum, start solving this nations top 10 most serious problems. Please help us do that .

Ultimately, many of our party leaders are no more leaders than you or I are. They want to coast on our approval.

Yes, they are a bit different. Many of them have it way too easy and they’re for sale. Yes, the do a lot of coasting, and waste a lot of time raising money for campaigns, instead of doing the work for the country. They’ve got it much too easy, have too many cu$hy perk$ and multi-million dollar pensions, get to write hot-checks, and even vote themselves raises.

I say make them work for it, and inch by inch, let the pressures of our attentions shape their agenda closer to ours. If the opportunity presents itself we push things even further.

Now you’re on the right track.

Fact of the matter is, the parties are like the weather, dependent on and sensitive to the conditions that surround them- the attitudes of millions upon millions of voters. If somebody can shift the opinions of those people, then it only takes a few critical events to shift things in a radical new direction.

No. They are like bratty kids let loose in a candy store. And, they have had it their way for so long, they are incredulous when they rarely do get unseated (like Tom Daschle was; I’ll never forget the look on his face when he lost). And, even if they get caught or convicted of a crime, they can get a pardon (like Clinton who pardoned a lot of felons like Dan Rostenkowski (who pled guilty for Pete’s sake); and he still got to collect his cu$hy multi-million dollar pen$sion funded by the tax payers. What voters need to do is fire them, and start some recalls, and need to be prosecuted. That’s how serious the situation really is. But watch…even if Tom DeLay gets convicted (even if he pleads guilty like Dan Rostenkowski), he’ll probably get a pardon, and still get to keep his cu$hy multi-million dollar pen$ion too.

Third Parties and Independents need to jump on this opportunity. They’re missin’ out if they don’t. All Third Parties and Independents should spread the non-incumbent message, because this may be the only peaceful way to balance power (not shift it) between government and the people. We need government that is responsible and willing to make tough decisions without fear of risking re-election. Voting non-incumbent repeatedly, until things are improved will remedy that. We need government with some courage and honesty. Not government that is for sale, corrupt, panders, and votes for pork-barrel, waste, graft, and themselves raise$ and perk$. Just go to www.cagw.org to get an idea of the magnitude of the problem.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 20, 2005 06:11 AM

A.P.
True, government during Clinton’s terms slowed spending, but the National Debt has grown every year for the last 45 years.
But, I’m not sure Ds should get all the credit for that. It’s funny that we praise government for slowing spending and simply being less irresponsible. Also, the current debt is also due to both the Ds and Rs spending like there’s no tomorrow (which might happen if they keep it up).

Technically, the National Debt still grew from 1992 to 2000 under Clinton. True, there were potential surpluses in 2000, but they got spent. They always do. Thus, the National Debt grows every year. It’s now $7,986,677,006,850.36 (10/14/2005), with interest over $1 billion per day. It would take 127 years to pay it off if we started now paying back $1.01 billion per day. The bigger it grows, the more it endangers the future and security of the nation.

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
_______________________________________
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66

True, it’s funny where politicians look to cut spending, while they ignore the pork-barrel, interest on the debt, and entitlement systems (which are still being plundered). It proves they’re not serious about it. It’s laughable.

Personally, I’m fed up with both Ds and Rs,
they’re both too irresponsible and unaccountable, and I’m not voting for either anymore, for a long long time…not until they get some courage and backbone and stop the excessive corruption, stop the election and campaign fraud, stop blocking access to 3rd parties and independents, fix the stupid tax system, reform the entitlement systems, stop pedding influence, and start being responsible and accountable.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 20, 2005 06:35 AM

“You know all that pork-barrel isn’t going back to the voters”

“It proves they’re not serious about it. It’s laughable.”

But yet, they keep asking for more dont they.
Good posts d.a.n

Posted by: kctim at October 20, 2005 09:03 AM

What would fix the tax problem is the fair tax!

Posted by: Merlyn at October 20, 2005 10:43 AM

Eric-
I don’t think of the government as a corporation. I think of it as a government, which means it must follow different rules. Why? Because it’s purposes are different, and therefore what make government efficient changes.

I think we are being overcharged, but because of the tax cuts, not in spite of them. We’re still paying for your “cheaper” government, but we’re paying for it with interest bearing bonds. We will have to pay for the money we borrow, and interest on top of that. This is the system your tax cuts are based on, and every time somebody works things this way, we end up in the economic toilet. When LBJ deficit spent to cover both the Vietnam War and the Great Society(the “cheaper” option), he gave us the wonderful economic situation of the ’70s. When Reagan and the Democratic congress decided to pay for tax cuts and new defense expenditures by deficit spending, the early ’90s resulted.

Bush is overcharging us by not asking us to pay for it with revenue. A lack of spending discipline is certainly a part of it, and it’s a cariacture of my argument to say that I would not approve of prudent spending cuts, especially if they could be initiated in the place of taxes. But I don’t think most of our new spending is disposable. That is, unless you want to end a war, and get rid of DOHS.

You talk of a monopoly. That’s ironic since your people don’t do much to stop companies of any type from consolidating. So what is it a monopoly of? You’re not clear on that. You just use it because it’s a word liberals don’t like to hear. With your positions on business kept in mind, though, it’s just a rhetorical argument, nothing substantial.

Fact of the matter is I don’t mind capitalism. I don’t mind competition. In fact, I want more of it than you do. I don’t think the government needs to make all our economic decision. I do think it needs to pay for itself, though.

Besides, your party isn’t merely failing to pay for the government, they’re spending more than ever before. They’re even putting the Liberals of the 1960s to shame.

I don’t want communism or nationalized industry. Your fertile imagination is the only thing that would convince our readers otherwise. I hope they would not be so gullible, that they would closely read my opinion, before taking your flights of fancy seriously. I choose tax hikes because at some point, we’re not cutting fat, but sacrificing muscle, the ability of our government to function and absorb massive hits like that of this war and of Katrina.

You give the unlikely scenario of typically tax averse Americans allowing things to spiral out of control, to avoid facing the truth of what those two crisises have made unmistakeable for most Americans: that our fiscal policy cannot support tax cuts, a war, and disaster relief at the same time. It’s questionable whether we can reduce enough big ticket items to compensate. That’s why I think we need to raise the taxes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2005 11:20 AM

d.a.n.-
What makes you think I’m trying to defend the excesses of government? I’m saying we can’t just sit around and let those excesses pass on the debt to our children. By all means we need to cut unnecessary spending. But that won’t do everything, because many of the biggest problems we have in terms of spending aren’t negotiable, unless we want to lose a war, or leave the Katrina area devastated. We don’t have a choice of paying for our current budget. What I’m saying is that it’s better that we take the hit while it’s less expensive. It’s no use preaching fire and brimstone about future budgets and future expenditures, if we’re going to fail to pay for our expenditures now.

I don’t know about that. I know intelligent people that are apathetic and complacent. They know government has run-amuck, and don’t know what to do about it (what they should do is vote non-incumbent).

What they can do is respond to specific problems. The advantage is that you’re not trying to mount a nationwide, comprehensive campaign. It’s something locals can do with simple awareness, a responsible press, and their votes. It doesn’t require some kind of big political machine to be created.

Hmmmm…that’s a bit nebulous. What do you mean “if the money isn’t theirs” ? It is the tax payers money.

That’s not nebulous. The treasury bonds that are paying for our debt are being bought by the Chinese and Japanese, mainly. They’re paying for our debt. We get to spend on other things, until the point we have to pay these folks back. In the meantime, we’re deficit spending, and it’s not our money paying for it. Therefore, why should we be concerned if spending goes up?

If spending goes up, and we’re in a pay-as-you-go policy, then the direct result, without spending cuts, is an additional tax hike, which the politicicans will have to explain to voters. If the voters want a program, and are willing to pay additional taxes, then that is the voter’s judgment to make. Putting things back on an even keep means it’s a question posed directly to the voters.

Sure, people (like children) ask for everything under the sun, but that doesn’t mean they should get anything they want. That’s why we need politicians with some backbone, and courage to do the right thing, and stop pandering.

Exactly.

The third parties should take the opportunity to mix things up, but you should keep in mind that the temptations of power come with the gaining of it, and so we will face the same problem with the new people and/or the third party politicians who come to power under any political shift. Your solution (in terms of changing out incumbents and pushing for greater third party presence) might change things in the near term, but even then the seeds of corruption will be sown again. My approach of being informed and paying attention to what our politicians do has a greater shelf-life because it deals with the underlying problem, rather than just the incidental or the superficial ones.

Government will always tend towards corruption, always attract the petitioners and courtiers that power has attracted since the beginning of civilization. Anybody who promises that one big effort will solve everything ignores history. America’s system works to the extent it does because it has a persistent response to the problems of power. It is the erosion of various safeguards and attitudes in our culture that has allowed things to get this bad.

Not the least of which, in my mind, is the bubbling away of government from its people over the decades, taken to it’s apotheosis by the Bush administration and the Republican Legislature.

If these guys lose their jobs when they misbehave, they will think twice about misuing their power. It’s a simplification of the reality, but really, this is a matter of margins. We can’t eliminate misbehavior, but we can make it rarer.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2005 12:17 PM

We can’t eliminate misbehavior, but we can make it rarer.

Stephen, I agree with this. However, it is your solution that leaves me amazed. How will we make misbehavior rarer if we give in and hand them more if what they are misbehaving about. It’s like giving a child candy to calm them down in a store even though the sugar just gets them more excited. Your solution may temporarily change the financial outlook but if the behavior of the government is not changed first then it will just repeat itself again later. We need to help change the behavior of the politicans, not feed them more candy to shut them up. Would you be more willing to give a drug addict money to help them start their life over before or after they have successfully been through rehab? Same goes for the government. They are getting plenty of money as it stands, throwing more money at them (in the form of higher taxes) is not the solution.

And btw, the Fair Tax book was written by John Linder, and co-written by Neil Boortz to make it an interesting read (instead of just another boring tax plan book). It is supported by many people from both sides of the isle in Washington. The plan was designed by many very well respected economists and is neither regressive or progressive (thats why it is called FAIR). If your goal is to stick it to the evil rich then you would not like the plan. Your comments show that your dislike for Neil Boortz is what fuels your dislike of the plan. Clearly from your comments you really have no idea what the plan is really about. My suggestion would be to read about it before assuming that it is or is not something just by who supports it.

Posted by: BradM at October 20, 2005 02:07 PM

BradM-
Try this Freeper entry from Dick Armey on for size

The Fair Tax is one of those ideas that works until it’s put into practices. I admit I was ignorant of what it was, but having read up about it, I like it even less. Implementing a Value Added tax means taxing business transactions at every step. Armey states that this is what national sales taxes eventually degenerate into, with examples of European nations presented in that vein.

I had to admit, I was smiling as I read through his descriptions of government getting involved in the tiniest business decision, though not for the reasons some dirty minds would present. No, I was smiling at the shear irony of what the conservatives would inflict on themselves. Even most liberals wouldn’t do this to themselves.

Fact of the matter is, the return checks alone would ensure the IRS and its bureacracy would survive in some form. You’d need it, if you wanted to distribute and process that many checks. If the Fair Tax went towards or already was a value added tax, you would agents poking their nose into businesses across the nation. You would necessitate all kinds of measures to ensure compliance. And then there would be the hidden costs of dealing with the black market that would come into existences.

Good heavens! Does does that sound like the conservatives dream? It’s sounds like a nightmare, from my perspective. The progressive income tax is fine as long as you’re not piling on exceptions and tax breaks every year like this congress. Your representatives can speak of the overwhelming complexity of the tax code, but what do you think all those breaks and things do?

We must take responsibility for our government’s spending. As long as we’re not paying out of pocket, we’re not going to keep as close an eye on what gets done. In the end, these people are elected by us, and their actions are our responsibility. If we do not keep aware of their dealings and keep the threat of losing elections present at all times, they will simply obey their thirst for power. We cannot sit around, fat, dumb, happy, and deluded, and expect corruption to solve itself. Moreover, as the last few years have proved, you can’t just keep us Democrats out of power and think that this will solve things. Members of both parties must actively interfere in the affairs of their representatives to ensure quality service from these people who are supposed to be public servants.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 20, 2005 04:33 PM

I’m not any kind of expert on the economy or even on finances. I can barely balance my checkbook. That’s why I have an accountant at work and let my wife handle the checkbook at home.
But I am smart enough to know that if I keep spending more money than I take in, I’m going to run into a whole heap a trouble someday. Most likely I’ll end up bankrupt, and possibly in jail.
Now if I can figure that out, WHY IN THE HELL CANN’T THEM DIMWHITS IN DC FIGURE IT OUT?

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 20, 2005 05:16 PM

If spending goes up, and we’re in a pay-as-you-go policy, then the direct result, without spending cuts, is an additional tax hike, which the politicicans will have to explain to voters.

Stephen, Stephen, Stephen. : )
Spending money is an addiction for politicians, and they don’t have any compunction about raising taxes. They do it all the time.

Giving politicians more money to spend is like giving and endless supply of cocaine to a rat in a cage. They’ll overdose on it.

For Pete’s sake, please tell me why $2.2 trillion per year (19% of GDP) is already not enough ? How much is too much ? Actually, 15% is what it should be. You’ll have to do a whole lot better to get me on board with tax hikes, when I know they’ll just spend and borrow more. It will make it worse, not better.

Oh sure, politicians give a tax cut once in a great while, but taxes usually keep getting higher and higher (except when Reagan cut them significantly; i.e. reduced maximum 90% category down to 33% I think). But, most the time, taxes continually increase. Besides, that last tax cut was not that enormous, and it actually resulted in a bigger tax cut (based on percentage of income) for the weatlthiest.

Now, about that borrowing from China, Japan, Germany, and France (BTW, I think France owns the biggest chunk of the National Debt);
Currently, we’ve got to pay over $1 billion per day for interest on an $8 trillion dollar National Debt. However, we’re also borrowing and spending $1 billion per day. That’s irresponsible. Should someone keep borrowing and spending when there’s a good chance they’ll never be able to pay it back ? These countries that are investing in our National Debt are in a Catch-22 now. If they stop lending us money, we’ll print more money, drive up inflation, and erode their investment. If they continue to lend us money, the Debt and spending and borrowing continues, until the interest can’t possibly be met, and the Fed prints more money which drives up inflation, which erodes their investment. So, you see, they’re screwed no matter what they do. Those countries are about to learn that. This may end up being the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the world.

We must take responsibility for our government’s spending. As long as we’re not paying out of pocket, we’re not going to keep as close an eye on what gets done.

But we are paying out of our pocket. We’re paying almost $2 trillion per year. That’s way more than enough. The problem is not insufficient taxation. The problem is irresponsible spending, borrowing, corruption, and stupid, dysfunctional, & costly tax system.

Government will always tend towards corruption, always attract the petitioners and courtiers that power has attracted since the beginning of civilization. Anybody who promises that one big effort will solve everything ignores history.

Yes, you can’t get rid of all corruption, but it can and should be greatly reduced.
The key to reducing corruption is to increase transparency, and simplify everything that has been over-complicated (by design) so that it can be more easily abused. It’s not that hard. A good place to start is:

(1) Pass a law that a BILL can only have ONE PURPOSE , so that the people can see what is really going on. BILLs consisting of thousands of pages are laden with pork-barrel, graft, and waste, and nobody can tell why anyone voted for or against the BILL. Therefore, pass a “ONE PURPOSE PER BILL” law. Any items in the BILL must be related to the purpose of the bill. That will save hundreds of billions per year.

(2) Pass a law that requires the federal government to adhere to a BALANCED BUDGET.
The only exception would be for a war and the funds would only be used for that purpose.

(3) Fix the tax system. It sucks.

(4) Reform campaign finance; government should not be for sale;

(5) Stop plundering Social Security; it really amounts to theft;

(6) Start reducing the Debt; $1 billion per day in interest is ridiculous, much less borrowing another $1 billion per day to pay that $1 billion in interest per day. It’s endangering the security and future of the nation.

The progressive income tax is fine as long as you’re not piling on exceptions and tax breaks every year like this congress

No. Graduated tax systems are unfair. The graduated part makes it unfair. It should be enough that with a flat income tax rate, that more tax is paid for more income earned. There’s no fair reason to tax higher incomes at a higher rate. A Flat Income Tax Rate (like this would be my preference) , or perhaps (maybe) something similar to the FairTax.org tax, with no deductions of any kind