Redstate

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater

N/T.

McCain '08

happens....come on all you congresspeople...you know you need the money...just say it!

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

I guess now we just need to start the bidding and see how much.

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

...compared to massive domestic boondoggles like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farmer welfare, and various other pork projects.

Get real bro - Iraq spending is a drop in the bucket in a 3.1 TRILLION dollar federal budget.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Some $100 billion/year is nothing to sneeze at. That's more than we spend on the drug war or education at the federal level - those stood at $35 and $30 billion respectively last time I checked.

$100 billion/year is about 2.5% of the federal budget, and again, PALES in comparison to entitlement programs and other social welfare programs.

It's also a drop in the bucket compared to Obama's proposed several hundred billion in new spending.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

And what did they do instead? Where was Grover Norquist's influence the whole time Bush kept the veto pen in his breast pocket while spending sky-rocketed?

I'm not defending Bush's liberal Democrat spending record.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Those are near the 45 year low of just pre-9/11/01 as indicated in this graph from Heritage

Any tax increase of any kind is an infringement on individual liberty.

Spending needs to be cut. Period.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

NT.

....necessary to sustain the basic and very limited functions of the federal government. Cutting taxes is a way to "starve the beast". Less money and more deficits is a way to force appropriators to cut spending.

Taxes should continue to be cut, particularly on capital gains and dividend income.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

If raising taxes were always bad, then it would be bad to raise taxes when taxes were zero, Therefore, it would be good to have no taxes, but maybe you really don’t think always raising taxes is bad. As far as starving the beast, it isn’t working. All we’re doing is bankrupting the country. I imagine what you see as the ideal size of government is one without any welfare – that’s not going to happen. We should be able to pay for the government we’re going to have in the real world, not in some fantasy land that extreme economic “conservatives” dream about.

And I am realistic in that we will not achieve a stripped down version of government with no social spending.

That being said, I think tax rates right now are somewhat reasonable, and they definitely do not need to be raised.

It is immoral, for instance, for the government to tax money twice, as they do with dividend income.

Finally, tax cuts do not bankrupt the country, out of control government spending does.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

but I imagine that was hyperbole on your part.

"Finally, tax cuts do not bankrupt the country, out of control government spending does."

That's like asking if a familly is going bankrupt because they're spending too much or because they aren't working hard enough. It might be one of the two that they should do, but the point is they need to do one or the other or they're going bankrupt. If there's 450 Billion dollars to cut in spending that will not leave the poor dying or in horrible conditions, that will leave our military stong enough to meet any challenges in the world, and enough money for the government to enforce order in the United States. I don't doubt that there's money to cut (allthough I think there's probably areas where we will need to increase spending too), but I doubt that there's four hundred Billion dollars worth to cut.

the federal government ought to be in the business of infrastructure and the military and really for me that's about it...leave the rest for the states.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Our nation survived for a very long time without income taxes.

Times change you know.

That was funny /sarc

Seriously, do you think that the government provided for those new inventions? Because otherwise, your examples are bunk.

Remember, those who advocated for the Federal Income Tax swore that marginal rates would never climb above 20% because they said that it would be socialist.

Whether or not we did fine with or without income tax 100 years ago is irrelavant. The question is whether income tax is a useful or fair way to do it. Personally I think its fair ( even God operates on a flat income tax) and I think the more income a person has the more disposable income they have which is why a progressive income tax is fair and neccessary.

... the more income a person has the more disposable income they have which is why a progressive income tax is fair ...

What you're really advocating is, "from each according to his ability [disposable income]".

Please advance your theory of who the government should justly provide services to and in what quantity, and then let us give a name to your political/economic belief system...

I'm not advocating taking all that one is capable of producing, and giving to all equally, like in communism. But there are neccessary services for the government to provide and it makes sense to tax those who are able to pay.

If we're determined to pay for government with an income tax then I'd like to see everyone's income taxed. Then every citizen (who earns an income) has a stake in what their government is up to, and every citizen has a genuine motivation (that they can still choose to ignore) for paying close attention to what government does with their money. I'm more than willing to see us try some sort of consumption tax, instead of an income tax - everyone still pays something.

I empathize with the gist of what you've been saying here, for my own part I'm no longer terribly interested by politicians who talk about lowering taxes without lowering spending first - let tax decreases be a consequence of spending decreases from now on, let them go hand in hand. Otherwise it smells of pander, rather than the unglamorous task of disciplined financial governance.

But were we to return to a proper government that is much (much) smaller, that requires proportionally less tax dollars to fund, who knows how low of a tax rate we could have. 10%? 5%? With all the additional funds that citizens could keep, I doubt very much we'd have an issue with things you mention, like, "if we allow the poor to starve or go without the necessities in life". It's just that instead of Our Glorious Leaders at Central Planning trying to solve the entire nation's poverty problems, you'd see organizations at the local levels take up the cause for those nearest to them.

And I would like to see a flat income tax. But I don't see how we can afford to not take more money from those who have more money to take.

I don't see how we can afford to not take more money from those who have more money to take.

We spend less. Then, not only do we not need to take more money (from anyone), we can start giving some back.

I know, I know... simple concept, the trick is the execution. And that will evidently require 300+ congresspeople who actually understand elementary budgeting and who deny the lure of liberalism, compassionate conservatism, and socialism. I admit, this has been remarkably difficult.

Much as Muslims have a conceptual understanding of God that rejects the Trinity, some people just can't get past a static model of wealth.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

is exactly why we are seeing calls for raising taxes. It's because people "don't see" (or won't see) that there are massive amounts of waste that can be cut from the federal budget to pay for new programs (provided they aren't wasteful themselves). This run to raise taxes is ludicrous. We must cut spending. It is the responsible thing to do.

Second, the last several times that we have cut marginal rates income tax revenues have increased. This suggests that we are still at a point on the Laffer curve where raising the tax rates would have the opposite effect.

Make some kind of realistic hypothetical budget proposal that shows how much taxes and spending you will cut and how it will all balance out. But the idea I get from you guys is that you just want to cut medicare, medicaid, and all welfare down to zero. That's just a fantasy, but if there's 450 Billion dollars of actual waste that we cut without cutting neccessary services to the poor and having a strong military, and other neccesary services than I'm all for it.

I would request budgets from each department that would shave 5% across the board. [3 trillion x .05 = 150 billion].

Target federal programs that can be outsourced to the private sector (such as the census). Newt Gingrich has an idea that Facebook, MySpace, UPS, FedEX, etc can use the technology that they already have at a savings of approx 9-10 billion

End subsidies of all types [I don't have figures on this one, but it is into the billions]

BTW, I don't (and I don't think anyone on here is saying No Medicare, No Medicaid and No welfare) think that it is at all unreasonable to assume that we couldn't do something to fix SSI, Medicare, Medicaid, etc that both reduces government spending and improves the system for those that need it.

The big problem in this type of a debate (and I run into it every time) is when people complain "You CAN'T cut that!". They make enough noise and something that probably could be cut/reformed doesn't get touched. And especially with politicians involved they start making deals with each other that their special project doesn't get harmed.

is exactly why we are seeing calls for raising taxes. It's because people "don't see" (or won't see) that there are massive amounts of waste that can be cut from the federal budget to pay for new programs (provided they aren't wasteful themselves). This run to raise taxes is ludicrous. We must cut spending. It is the responsible thing to do.

Second, the last several times that we have cut marginal rates income tax revenues have increased. This suggests that we are still at a point on the Laffer curve where raising the tax rates would have the opposite effect.

Look over there, a straw man to beat up.

its a sad day when trying to get annual federal spending below 2 TRILLIAN dollars is considered radical and not "real world"

I'm sure the Founding Fathers were told that fighting the most powerful empire in the world was crazy too.

Now since obviosly at least hypothetically you don't think that's true, lets drop that line of the discussion.
As far as the Laffer Curve, from all I've read all the reputable economist believe were not near the point where cutting taxes would raise revenue. Now, if you have something to refute that then shoot away. However, I've seen that debate on Redstate before and in my mind the "Bush tax-cuts increased revenue" side lost.

Tax cuts don't necessarily "pay in full for themselves" but there is a supply side kicker to taxes.

If you raise taxes, you will NOT collect as much as you think because you will stifle the economy.

if you lower taxes, you will NOT reduce revenues as much as you think, because the economy will do better.

I am for a free economy because I like freedom.

My family has experience living in countries where you can't do what you want, live where you want, budget your life the way you want.

I prefer freedom and hope to be free for the remainder of my life.

"Tax cuts don't necessarily "pay in full for themselves" but there is a supply side kicker to taxes.

If you raise taxes, you will NOT collect as much as you think because you will stifle the economy.

if you lower taxes, you will NOT reduce revenues as much as you think, because the economy will do better."

I agree with all of that. My concern is that we have over a four hundred billion dollar deficit and a nine trillion dollar debt. We need to increase revenue or decrease spending. Likely we need to both. If we go about trying to increase revenue its important to know where we are on the Laffer curve.

As to economic freedom, I share your concern over a government that is too big infringing on our freedoms. However, if we allow the poor to starve or go without the neccessities in life, than those people aren't going to be very free. That's why I think a balance is important.

You attributed a lot of statements to me that I wasn't making.

We should cut taxes though.

In the late 1970s, there were all sorts of articles about how Europe was going to catch and surpass the US economically. Now, our GDP per capital is eomthing like 30% higher than theirs. We smoked them.

Why? The Reagan tax cuts in 1981.

So yeah, I prefer policies that are facilitate job creation and success, not a long slow slide into mediocrity

We should be paying (only) that amount of taxes which is vitally necessary to efficiently carrying out the narrow purposes for which our federal government was formed, as defined by the Constitution.

Our inability to live within our means, at all levels of society (including the Federal Budget), is driving down the value of the U.S. dollar.

The result is that everything we buy, from gasoline and heating oil to food and even tourist trips out of the country, is costing much more in these depreciated dollars. That's a huge "hidden tax" on Americans of all income levels, as Ronald Reagan well knew.

Polls show that tax cuts just don't have the resonance with American voters that they used to. Because their taxes haven't been rising anywhere near as fast as their living costs. Given a choice, the vast majority of Americans would like to see the cost of food, fuel and medical care brought under control. And that's impossible as long as the dollar keeps depreciating.

I'm willing to listen to any alternative proposal from conservatives as to how to begin to close that budget shortfall, live within our means, and boost the value of the dollar again.

If you really want the GOP to run on a platform of abolishing Social Security, Medicare and/or other entitlements, then have the guts to say so. But with an election coming up, remember this:

In the 1980s, even Reagan couldn't cut entitlements much.

In the 1990s, even Gingrich couldn't cut entitlements much.

Some of us may look back nostalgically to a time before the New Deal, but I'm sorry to tell you, the New Deal ain't gonna be abolished in our lifetimes. That's a political reality that conservatives have to live with (even though libertarians continue to live in Galt's Gulch somewhere).

Worst.Logic.Ever.

I mean, really, you aren't even a good troll. If you were going to be a good troll, you'd at least pick arguments that are difficult to refute because they are too broad to refute. These ones could be knocked down with a feather.

However, my fingers are too tired to bother. Goodbye troll.

"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain

jkern
what would you cut to pay for it or is it not something that we should do?

I would cut welfare to farmers and welfare to any corporation for that matter...

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

1. Raise the retirement age

2. Means test social security

3. Institute Co-pays on medicare

4. Raise the eligibility age on medicare

5. Eliminate the Department of Education

6. Eliminate welfare to farmers and eliminate ethanol subsidies

...for starters.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

the billions of dollars of waste that EVERY department could cut. There are massive levels of bureaucracy in every level of government that is essentially pissing away tax payers money (yes, this includes military spending).

Social Security is paid through SS payroll taxes, not general revenues.

Reducing SS benefits might help keep SS solvent in future years. But it will do nothing to reduce the current budget deficit, which was not caused by SS in the first place.

As for your other proposals, there's no platform there that the GOP could possibly run on this year that wouldn't get them clobbered in the upcoming election. Your proposals target seniors (whom we're counting on to deliver Florida to McCain) and farmers (whom we're counting on to deliver the West to McCain).

And that's your problem in a nutshell, right there. Those programs are there because vast numbers of Americans want them there. If there were popular support for cutting entitlements, they would get cut. That's what happened to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (a.k.a. welfare). Welfare reform finally got enacted because Americans had reached the point where they themselves were demanding it.

But to the blue-collar "Reagan Democrats," Social Security is not "welfare," because hard-working Americans contribute to the pool so they can ensure their own retirement pension.