Divider-in-Chief

[3rdnlng]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730104576260911986870054.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[Rob's House]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730104576260911986870054.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

 

With incremental change, Mr. Ryan is trying maintain a social safety net and the economic growth necessary to finance it. Mr. Obama presented what some might call the false choice of merely preserving the government we have with no realistic plan for doing so, aside from proposing $4 trillion in phantom deficit reduction over a gimmicky 12-year budget window that makes that reduction seem larger than it would be over the normal 10-year window.

 

Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets. Yet the "cost" of extending all the Bush rates in 2011 over 10 years was about $3.7 trillion. Some $3 trillion of that was for everything but the top brackets—and Mr. Obama says he wants to extend those rates forever. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year.

I'd like to hear an Obama supporter explain how we avoid economic catastrophe by addressing these issues rather than giving a bunch of lofty bull **** rhetoric about children starving and old people forced to eat dog food. And let's not pretend a military budget accountig for less than 20% of the federal budget is the main culprit here. A little intellectual honesty, please.

[Booster4324]

I'd like to hear an Obama supporter explain how we avoid economic catastrophe by addressing these issues rather than giving a bunch of lofty bull **** rhetoric about children starving and old people forced to eat dog food. And let's not pretend a military budget accountig for less than 20% of the federal budget is the main culprit here. A little intellectual honesty, please.

 

We could still afford to cut there. What is it, our Navy is larger than the next 13 navies combined? And like 10 of those navies are allies? It pains me to say it, but there could be cuts there IMO. Seeing as how I do not think we should be sending in ground troops period (unless we take the gloves off), I would espouse cuts in the Army. Shave some off the Air Force, and leave the Marines alone (maybe cancel the Osprey). Do we really need to spend 40ish % of the world's military expenditures? Add in Britain and France (France actually counts as a net penalty) and we are over 50% I bet.

[Rob's House]

We could still afford to cut there. What is it, our Navy is larger than the next 13 navies combined? And like 10 of those navies are allies? It pains me to say it, but there could be cuts there IMO. Seeing as how I do not think we should be sending in ground troops period (unless we take the gloves off), I would espouse cuts in the Army. Shave some off the Air Force, and leave the Marines alone (maybe cancel the Osprey). Do we really need to spend 40ish % of the world's military expenditures? Add in Britain and France (France actually counts as a net penalty) and we are over 50% I bet.

That's not really my argument. I don't know the military budget well enough to determine what is and isn't essential to maintaining security. My main point is that if we disolved our national defense we still wouldn't cut the deficit in half, yet so many idealogues use our defense budget as a scapegoat as though that's the real reason for our budget woes.

 

I'm not above reconsidering our role as Team America: World Police, but I'd like it if we as a nation took a more practical and realistic approach to our budget situation rather than the dogmatic partisanship that usually prevails.

[GG]

We could still afford to cut there. What is it, our Navy is larger than the next 13 navies combined? And like 10 of those navies are allies? It pains me to say it, but there could be cuts there IMO. Seeing as how I do not think we should be sending in ground troops period (unless we take the gloves off), I would espouse cuts in the Army. Shave some off the Air Force, and leave the Marines alone (maybe cancel the Osprey). Do we really need to spend 40ish % of the world's military expenditures? Add in Britain and France (France actually counts as a net penalty) and we are over 50% I bet.

 

You are absolutely correct. Anything that takes up 5% of GDP can be easily cut without much change to the effectiveness. But the DoD is not where the doomsday scenario will be. The DoD budget is basically topped out at 5%. That's not the case with the entitlements and the upside down demographic trends. Not addressing that is pure folly.

[Booster4324]

That's not really my argument. I don't know the military budget well enough to determine what is and isn't essential to maintaining security. My main point is that if we disolved our national defense we still wouldn't cut the deficit in half, yet so many idealogues use our defense budget as a scapegoat as though that's the real reason for our budget woes.

 

I'm not above reconsidering our role as Team America: World Police, but I'd like it if we as a nation took a more practical and realistic approach to our budget situation rather than the dogmatic partisanship that usually prevails.

 

Fair enough, and we don't have to drastically cut it. As you and GG point out (albeit in different ways), it is not THAT big a percentage of the budget.

 

You are absolutely correct. Anything that takes up 5% of GDP can be easily cut without much change to the effectiveness. But the DoD is not where the doomsday scenario will be. The DoD budget is basically topped out at 5%. That's not the case with the entitlements and the upside down demographic trends. Not addressing that is pure folly.

 

Completely agreed, but unfortunately no one seems to have the stones for it. Paul Ryan did touch on the entitlements, but refuses to touch the military. Frankly, his plan is not draconian enough.

[RkFast]

I'd like to hear an Obama supporter explain how we avoid economic catastrophe by addressing these issues rather than giving a bunch of lofty bull **** rhetoric about children starving and old people forced to eat dog food. And let's not pretend a military budget accountig for less than 20% of the federal budget is the main culprit here. A little intellectual honesty, please.

 

 

Im like to hear ANYONE explain how repealing the Bush Tax cuts would result in "economic ccatastrophe."

 

Im a supply sider and even Im getting a little skeptical about these claims of how if we take one red cent more from the rich, the economy will plunge into ruin.

[finknottle]

Do we really need to spend 40ish % of the world's military expenditures? Add in Britain and France (France actually counts as a net penalty) and we are over 50% I bet.

 

Neither want to side-track the discussion nor debate whether or not the military can be cut, but a pet peeve of mine is the use of the statistics comparing US military expenditures to those of the world. Because of currency and standards of living, it is comparing apples to oranges. The same weaponry cost the US far more than it does China or Russia built in their country. And consider how much a US soldier costs. There is salary, war-zone pay, moving allowences, health-care, etc ... all at US rates. And then there are post-service things like education and life-time VA benefits. That's all part of the US military budget. Now ask what it costs China (or indeed, a poorer country) per soldier. I read recently that China raised enlisted pay 50%, to $120 a month! And I'm guessing their forces don't get anything like the housing allowances our do. Factoring in post-service expenses, employing an American soldier probably costs a hundred times what it does in any non-European country. Put another way, China could build a military twice as strong as the US, and it would probably cost them half the price.

[Booster4324]

Neither want to side-track the discussion nor debate whether or not the military can be cut, but a pet peeve of mine is the use of the statistics comparing US military expenditures to those of the world. Because of currency and standards of living, it is comparing apples to oranges. The same weaponry cost the US far more than it does China or Russia built in their country. And consider how much a US soldier costs. There is salary, war-zone pay, moving allowences, health-care, etc ... all at US rates. And then there are post-service things like education and life-time VA benefits. That's all part of the US military budget. Now ask what it costs China (or indeed, a poorer country) per soldier. I read recently that China raised enlisted pay 50%, to $120 a month! And I'm guessing their forces don't get anything like the housing allowances our do. Factoring in post-service expenses, employing an American soldier probably costs a hundred times what it does in any non-European country. Put another way, China could build a military twice as strong as the US, and it would probably cost them half the price.

 

Holy ****, 1/4 the price tag? Damn, I am scared now as they currently spend about 1/6th what we do. They have almost overtaken us...

Edited April 14, 2011 by Booster4324

[outsidethebox]

Im like to hear ANYONE explain how repealing the Bush Tax cuts would result in "economic ccatastrophe."

 

Im a supply sider and even Im getting a little skeptical about these claims of how if we take one red cent more from the rich, the economy will plunge into ruin.

I agree with you Rk. I lean more to the right than to the left. But I am tired of the the doomsday the republicans say will happen if they raised taxes on the rich 3 percent. The claim they will be forced to pull there companies out of the united sates if that happens seems like pure hogwash to me. Think about it, the tax cuts in place for the rich have been in place since GWB, but companies are STILL pulling jobs out of the country. They will move the jobs overseas if they can make a penny more. I don't understand the middle class staunch support for the rich in this country when they are being screwed by them at the same time.

Take the company I work for, for an example.They have made between 20-25 percent OVER budget for the last ten years now.So how do they reward there employees? They cut the bonus in half, gave out a 1.1 percent raise. While the president of the company pockets a cool half million dollar bonus.While he bitches about the cost of putting his kids through college. I know I could leave my job and find another one, but I've been with the company when a profit of 12 million a year was a cause for a HUGE party. Now we are making a profit ten times that over a 15 year period. Sometimes I wish they would share the wealth a little more.

Edited April 14, 2011 by westside

[Barack Obama]

Yes we can.

 

Now get in the back seat.

[DC Tom]

Neither want to side-track the discussion nor debate whether or not the military can be cut, but a pet peeve of mine is the use of the statistics comparing US military expenditures to those of the world. Because of currency and standards of living, it is comparing apples to oranges. The same weaponry cost the US far more than it does China or Russia built in their country. And consider how much a US soldier costs. There is salary, war-zone pay, moving allowences, health-care, etc ... all at US rates. And then there are post-service things like education and life-time VA benefits. That's all part of the US military budget. Now ask what it costs China (or indeed, a poorer country) per soldier. I read recently that China raised enlisted pay 50%, to $120 a month! And I'm guessing their forces don't get anything like the housing allowances our do. Factoring in post-service expenses, employing an American soldier probably costs a hundred times what it does in any non-European country. Put another way, China could build a military twice as strong as the US, and it would probably cost them half the price.

 

"HR costs" like that are roughly 25% of the Pentagon's budget. It'd probably be more, except for DoD's reliance on contractors.

 

And that including training - and the US not only trains more than just about everyone on the planet, but has FAR more training infrastructure than anyone else, so much so that other countries train here.

[Peace]

Navy is the last thing I'd cut. Open trade routes are more important than nation building.

[pBills]

I'd like to hear an Obama supporter explain how we avoid economic catastrophe by addressing these issues rather than giving a bunch of lofty bull **** rhetoric about children starving and old people forced to eat dog food. And let's not pretend a military budget accountig for less than 20% of the federal budget is the main culprit here. A little intellectual honesty, please.

 

 

Let me ask you this... with the U.S. spending six times more than any other nation in the world on Defense. Do you think we can cut defense? Personally I believe we can DRAMATICALLY cut defense with no threat to National Security.

 

Eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts can and should be done as well. When the wealthiest of Americans are already at the lowest tax rates since 1955, there is NO reason for them to go lower. If anything they should be raised at least another 10% - 12%. It would not hurt them in any way. Let's face it, if we asking workers to pay more for their benefits, for their pensions, etc. We can ask the wealthiest to do their fair share as well. The belief is that most of them would agree with that. I am not going to be one of those people saying that the right is forcing families to eat dog food, etc. But they are expecting the middle-class and lower to take on the bills.

 

Now I would like to hear someone explain why these items can't be done. None of this lowering tax rates will spur on job growth nonsense or anything like that. Even with the rates as low as they are now, job growth is still slow at best. Any slower we would be going in reverse.

[GG]

Im like to hear ANYONE explain how repealing the Bush Tax cuts would result in "economic ccatastrophe."

 

Im a supply sider and even Im getting a little skeptical about these claims of how if we take one red cent more from the rich, the economy will plunge into ruin.

 

Read between the partisan rhetoric. The economy will not be ruined if you raise taxes on the superwealthy. But you'd pretty much guarantee the end of any semblance of a return of high growth recovery that's needed. Plus, by putting even more tax collection responsibility on a class that has the wherewithal to defer their income and thus their taxes, you create a bigger hole. So while taxing the rich has a nice ring to it, it is a stupid fiscal policy that carries serious negative effects.

 

The best fiscal policy is the one that expands the tax base. Right now we're on track where most of the population will not pay an income tax. Taxing the rich brings in nice gains when times are good - case in point, Clinton still gets the credit for balancing the budget, yet it was all due to the spike in the capital gains taxes since he was lucky to be in office during the dot.com runup. Conversely, Obama is seeing the opposite effect - when the wealthy incomes fall, tax revenue goes down even faster because you are so dependent on the rich to provide a lion's share of taxes.

 

That's why the argument about tax rates is specious. The right policy is to flatten out the tax in the 18%-20% range and expand the base to everyone.

Edited April 15, 2011 by GG

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

that campaign speech he propogated as fact was disgusting and a new low in politics. the guy is a complete joke

[pBills]

Read between the partisan rhetoric. The economy will not be ruined if you raise taxes on the superwealthy. But you'd pretty much guarantee the end of any semblance of a return of high growth recovery that's needed. Plus, by putting even more tax collection responsibility on a class that has the wherewithal to defer their income and thus their taxes, you create a bigger hole. So while taxing the rich has a nice ring to it, it is a stupid fiscal policy that carries serious negative effects.

 

The best fiscal policy is the one that expands the tax base. Right now we're on track where most of the population will not pay an income tax. Taxing the rich brings in nice gains when times are good - case in point, Clinton still gets the credit for balancing the budget, yet it was all due to the spike in the capital gains taxes since he was lucky to be in office during the dot.com runup. Conversely, Obama is seeing the opposite effect - when the wealthy incomes fall, tax revenue goes down even faster because you are so dependent on the rich to provide a lion's share of taxes.

 

That's why the argument about tax rates is specious. The right policy is to flatten out the tax in the 18%-20% range and expand the base to everyone.

 

 

Not buying into your negative effects. So it's best to have everyone else do their fair share... yet don't touch the superwealthy because it's believed it will slow down growth? Sorry, knowing that these people have been enjoying ridiculously low tax rates for the past decade. Time to change things up a bit. Time to also change up and close those corporate loop holes.

[GG]

Not buying into your negative effects. So it's best to have everyone else do their fair share... yet don't touch the superwealthy because it's believed it will slow down growth? Sorry, knowing that these people have been enjoying ridiculously low tax rates for the past decade. Time to change things up a bit. Time to also change up and close those corporate loop holes.

 

Which part of "wealthy people have greater resources to defer income, and thus income tax" is hard for you to understand? Why do you think CEOs can make a symbolic move like work for a $1 salary, yet still live comfortably?

 

Of course you're not buying what I'm telling you because you can't comprehend simple math.

[pBills]

Which part of "wealthy people have greater resources to defer income, and thus income tax" is hard for you to understand? Why do you think CEOs can make a symbolic move like work for a $1 salary, yet still live comfortably?

 

Of course you're not buying what I'm telling you because you can't comprehend simple math.

 

 

Of course they do. I know that they can also pay more... why is everyone so scared to take them on and raise the rates. Hell the beloved Reagan had the rates around 70%.

[GG]

Of course they do. I know that they can also pay more... why is everyone so scared to take them on and raise the rates. Hell the beloved Reagan had the rates around 70%.

 

Where's that hit the head on the wall smiley?

 

Of course the rich CAN pay more. But the whole point is that they will NOT pay more because they can DEFER their income. Now unless you & the comrades are advocating confiscating property, the rich have a lot more freedom to dial up and dial down their incomes. So if you tack on punitive tax rates, they'll simple defer a whole bunch of income to later years, and your budget situation is even more in the crapper.

 

Simple math - when there's no income to tax, even a 100% tax rate won't generate any additional tax.

 

Now go back to blowing up your protest rat.