Democrats in Congress really want to redistribute wealth. That is called socialism.

[Anonymous]

there are many other things that are necessary too, such as hard work, which not every person is willing to put forth.

For every *single* hard-working person with wealth in this coountry, there are tens of thousands struggling to get by.

Hard work isn't even necessary to create wealth. That's not to say that some folks with money haven't worked hard for it--just that

just because it is ok for the government to tax people to pay for necessary "political/legal/physical infrastructure," as you put it, it does not follow that it is also ok for the goverment to tax people to pay for unnecessary/wasteful spending or to dole out goodies to favored constituencies or in an effort to buy votes.

This is just grandstanding, and leads me to believe you're one of those types who think massive payments to upper-middle-class rural Americans and large agribusiness is A-OK, but giving tax-credits to urban poor is "buying votes."

As you say, the argument *is* about what llevel is fair. Right now we've got a level of taxation that's the lowest in modern American history--by a long shot. So, of course, political extremists on the right are more incensed than ever. It's completely irrational.

So tell us, as your side has been asked repeatedly, what are you going to cut? You can't be so naive to think that cutting discretionary spending is going to make even the slightest dent, right?

[Anonymous]

Hard work isn't even necessary to create wealth. That's not to say that some folks with money haven't worked hard for it--just that it's neither sufficient *nor* a necessary condition of wealth-creation.

[Anonymous]

Or do you think that there should be no limitation on the power of 50%+1 of the people to vote themselves money from the other 49%? I think there should be, and I also think there is as a matter of economic reality.

Why even ask the question when the top marginal tax rates are so ridiculously low in this country, and we've gutted one of the most American taxes of all: the estate tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Or do you think that there should be no limitation on the power of 50%+1 of the people to vote themselves money from the other 49%? I think there should be, and I also think there is as a matter of economic reality.

Why even ask the question when the top marginal tax rates are so ridiculously low in this country, and we've gutted one of the most American taxes of all: the estate tax.

Oh, and one last thing: if there's one thing that you can absolutely count on--more so than the sun coming up in the east in the morning--it's that, if the GOP manages to lie its way back into a position of power, they will increase deficits. The last GOP Administration to act in a fiscally responsible manner was G HW Bush, and he's a pariah among conservatives.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/gop-record-of-deficit-reductions-illustrates-the-point-that-conservatives-dont-care-about-the-deficit/

An iron clad rule of politics: When Democrats are in power, deficits matter to the GOP. When the GOP is in power, it's time to break the bank. It's the party of children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

there are many other things that are necessary too, such as hard work, which not every person is willing to put forth.

For every *single* hard-working person with wealth in this coountry, there are tens of thousands struggling to get by.

Hard work isn't even necessary to create wealth. That's not to say that some folks with money haven't worked hard for it--just that

just because it is ok for the government to tax people to pay for necessary "political/legal/physical infrastructure," as you put it, it does not follow that it is also ok for the goverment to tax people to pay for unnecessary/wasteful spending or to dole out goodies to favored constituencies or in an effort to buy votes.

This is just grandstanding, and leads me to believe you're one of those types who think massive payments to upper-middle-class rural Americans and large agribusiness is A-OK, but giving tax-credits to urban poor is "buying votes."

As you say, the argument *is* about what llevel is fair. Right now we've got a level of taxation that's the lowest in modern American history--by a long shot. So, of course, political extremists on the right are more incensed than ever. It's completely irrational.

So tell us, as your side has been asked repeatedly, what are you going to cut? You can't be so naive to think that cutting discretionary spending is going to make even the slightest dent, right?

Current taxes are not particularly low by historical standards -- nominal rates are well below what they were prior to tax reform in the mid-1980s, of course, but a much smaller amount of income was subject to those rates due to lots of (very inefficient) tax shelters, etc. I think tax rates as a percentage of GDP have been relatively flat over time. Obviously borrow-and-spend has been a policy that both parties have managed to agree upon.

As for cuts, as a practical matter, I am not naive enough to believe that material budget cuts are ever going to be a political reality -- that is why you need to fight the expansion of programs *before* they occur, because once they exist, they are basically there forever. There is, of course, also nothing that can be cut sufficiently to pay for the long-term costs of health care reform. If I had my druthers, I'd say repeal Obamacare -- which is not, and never has been deficit neutral; that political talking point is an artifact of the way the CBO scoring for the bill was gamed, and we can't afford it -- and then try to freeze, rather than cut, federal spending across the board while we try to work out way out of the current problems. If there would be real spending discipline -- a point I'd be skeptical of really happening -- I'd be willing to accept some tax increases to close the gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh, and one last thing: if there's one thing that you can absolutely count on--more so than the sun coming up in the east in the morning--it's that, if the GOP manages to lie its way back into a position of power, they will increase deficits. The last GOP Administration to act in a fiscally responsible manner was G HW Bush, and he's a pariah among conservatives.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/gop-record-of-deficit-reductions-illustrates-the-point-that-conservatives-dont-care-about-the-deficit/

An iron clad rule of politics: When Democrats are in power, deficits matter to the GOP. When the GOP is in power, it's time to break the bank. It's the party of children.

Yes, I will never forget when Reagan ran against Carter and started talking about deficits. Being quite young, it was the first I had heard of this problem and even though I didn't vote for Reagan I was a bit concerned about this deficit problem he was talking about. Then he went and quadrupled the damn deficit! WTF!

[Anonymous]

There is, of course, also nothing that can be cut sufficiently to pay for the long-term costs of health care reform.

The long-term costs of ACA have been shown by independent estimates to be revenue-neutral at worst, and to save money at best. Your unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Or do you think that there should be no limitation on the power of 50%+1 of the people to vote themselves money from the other 49%? I think there should be, and I also think there is as a matter of economic reality.

Why even ask the question when the top marginal tax rates are so ridiculously low in this country, and we've gutted one of the most American taxes of all: the estate tax.

Oh, and one last thing: if there's one thing that you can absolutely count on--more so than the sun coming up in the east in the morning--it's that, if the GOP manages to lie its way back into a position of power, they will increase deficits. The last GOP Administration to act in a fiscally responsible manner was G HW Bush, and he's a pariah among conservatives.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/11/gop-record-of-deficit-reductions-illustrates-the-point-that-conservatives-dont-care-about-the-deficit/

An iron clad rule of politics: When Democrats are in power, deficits matter to the GOP. When the GOP is in power, it's time to break the bank. It's the party of children.

H.W. Bush is a grossly underappreciated President that I think history will look quite favorably upon, and he is hardly a pariah. Do you know any real conservatives? He just had the misfortune to follow an extremely charismatic and popular president in Reagan. But Republican fiscal irresponsibility pales in comparison to what we have now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There is, of course, also nothing that can be cut sufficiently to pay for the long-term costs of health care reform.

The long-term costs of ACA have been shown by independent estimates to be revenue-neutral at worst, and to save money at best. Your unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary.

Cite, please? As I understand it, the only reason CBO scored it as revenue neutral was by comparing 10 years of revenue to 7 years of benefits and assuming that politically-impossible Medicare cuts included in the bill would actually be enacted. I'd, of course, be interested in an objective assessment of that issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

H.W. Bush is a grossly underappreciated President that I think history will look quite favorably upon, and he is hardly a pariah. Do you know any real conservatives? He just had the misfortune to follow an extremely charismatic and popular president in Reagan. But Republican fiscal irresponsibility pales in comparison to what we have now.

Yes, I have to say that now I have lived through the era of his moron son I understand that I did under-appreciate HW. HW was smart enough to know that the US should not set up an occupation in Iraq. Additionally, HW is still the only president in recent times who had the gonads to hold Israel accountable. But HW is a country club Republican and their day has passed. It's got nothing to do with Ronald Reagan.

[Anonymous]

Or do you think that there should be no limitation on the power of 50%+1 of the people to vote themselves money from the other 49%? I think there should be, and I also think there is as a matter of economic reality.

As of now, there is no such limit - if you have the votes, you could pass the 90% marginal tax rate on income over 20 million. Are you suggesting there be some structural limitation - a constitutional amendment precluding taxes over a certain rate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or do you think that there should be no limitation on the power of 50%+1 of the people to vote themselves money from the other 49%? I think there should be, and I also think there is as a matter of economic reality.

As of now, there is no such limit - if you have the votes, you could pass the 90% marginal tax rate on income over 20 million. Are you suggesting there be some structural limitation - a constitutional amendment precluding taxes over a certain rate?

Just to add two cents: I see no problem whatsoever with passing a 90% marginal tax rate on income over 20 million. (Obviously, that means that only income over 20 million per year would be taxed at 90%. Everything below that would be subject to the lower rates.)

[Anonymous]

As for cuts, as a practical matter, I am not naive enough to believe that material budget cuts are ever going to be a political reality -- that is why you need to fight the expansion of programs *before* they occur, because once they exist, they are basically there forever. There is, of course, also nothing that can be cut sufficiently to pay for the long-term costs of health care reform. If I had my druthers, I'd say repeal Obamacare -- which is not, and never has been deficit neutral; that political talking point is an artifact of the way the CBO scoring for the bill was gamed, and we can't afford it -- and then try to freeze, rather than cut, federal spending across the board while we try to work out way out of the current problems. If there would be real spending discipline -- a point I'd be skeptical of really happening -- I'd be willing to accept some tax increases to close the gap.

And here's the rub - your attempt at reasonableness would resonate a lot more if you included the Medicare drug benefit and massive agribusiness subsidies in your list of things to repeal. As it is, your basic position seems to be, "Well, since they've been in place for a few years, we have to leave the Republican boondoggles/grossly inefficient programs in place. Those more recent one passed by the Democrats? Repeal, Repeal, Repeal!" I doubt you were singing the same tune 5 years ago.

As an aside, ending agribusiness subsidies for corn would, down the road, pay dividends on the health care front. But, with the Iowa caucuses being what they are, there's little chance of that. Not a partisan issue, of course - both parties are to blame.

Republicans can never be taken seriously abot trimming the deficit because they will never entertain defense cuts, and without cuts to defense spending, it's just fiddling while Rome burns. u

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is, of course, also nothing that can be cut sufficiently to pay for the long-term costs of health care reform.

The long-term costs of ACA have been shown by independent estimates to be revenue-neutral at worst, and to save money at best. Your unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary.

Cite, please? As I understand it, the only reason CBO scored it as revenue neutral was by comparing 10 years of revenue to 7 years of benefits and assuming that politically-impossible Medicare cuts included in the bill would actually be enacted. I'd, of course, be interested in an objective assessment of that issue.

I doubt you're "convinceable", but anyone else interested in the issue might be interested in Ezra Klein's reporting:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/omb_aca_cbo_and_the_deficit.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/07/cost_control_and_the_aca.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/does_health-care_reform_bend_t.html

A lot of the confusion does seem to be over the misconception that health care costs in the US are somehow stable or sustainable. They ain't. They're exploding. Waving a "Don't Tread on Me" flag won't address that problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As it is, your basic position seems to be, "Well, since they've been in place for a few years, we have to leave the Republican boondoggles/grossly inefficient programs in place. Those more recent one passed by the Democrats? Repeal, Repeal, Repeal!" I doubt you were singing the same tune 5 years ago.

It's even worse than that: because there are arguments that can be made whether ACA will actually reduce health care costs long-term. From what I've read, the anti- arguments seem incorrect, but we can have that debate.

There's no debate that the programs passed by the GOP do anything but hemorrhage money.