Google+ Followers

Blog Catalog

Saturday, March 21, 2015

On the Latest Republican Budget Plan

They are nothing if not consistent.

Heartless, greedy and selfish but consistent.

You should be very, very angry”: Paul Krugman torches GOP’s newbudgets



Sevesteen said...

The democrats have no moral right to complain about a budget, since they refused to enact one when they had full control of everything.

We could tax the rich at 100%, it won't solve the problem while government spends faster than the rich pay taxes. Growth of government MUST be smaller than growth of the private sector, over the long term nothing else is sustainable. That's not a political ideology, it's simple, basic math.

Mo Rage said...

We have to pass abudget every year no matter what political party has control.

But you knew that.

It's not about taxing the rich at 100% and it's not about growth of government, either, actually. No one, no one, is talking about "growing government." The Democrats certainly aren't. And it was the "small government", reputedly Conservative, Right Wing Republican Party, as I've pointed out here, and to you, in the past, who grew government mightily with that last guy in the White House with his brilliant idea of a department of "Homeland Security." And it's proven to be a cash boondoggle, as we've seen.

It's about merely putting some reasonable limits on, again, the wealthy, corporations and the greedy so they don't take advantage of the little guy, the middle and lower classes. No one else can do that but government.

Don't take these points to extremes like "taxing the rich 100%." It weakens your own argument and no one is remotely proposing anything close to that. It does you and me both a disservice.

Sevesteen said...

We are supposed to pass a budget every year, but apparently we don't actually have to....since we haven't. It's the other side's fault. Having a perpetual crisis suits the interests of both the left and right statists.

Part of the problem is that nobody is admitting to growing the government faster than the private sector. Both sides are steering, trying to get to the power they want, but neither side is willing to get off the gas, let alone hit the brakes.

Government continues to grow faster than the private sector. That obviously has to stop, we should do it before the stop is a crash. Greedy corporations are great boogeymen, but the real problem is power seeking government. Sometimes they ally with corporations, sometimes they use them.

Taxing the rich at 91% is pretty close to taxing them at 100%, you looked back on those days with fondness in at least a couple of posts on this blog. "Nobody says anything close" weakens your own argument, especially when you've said it here.

Mo Rage said...

We both agree Congress should do their jobs. One of those and one of the most important is that they should annually write and pass a budget, certainly.

I have written many, many times, here and on Facebook, at least, that one of the best ways to shrink government and to also, as fallout from that, make the nation stronger actually, is to cut the Defense budget, unequivocally.

You said taxing the government 100%. No one else.

In all my life, in all 58 years, I have never once in those years, in any breath, written or given support to or stated support for taxing the wealthy at 90% or 91% or anything like it. For you to say otherwise is at least incorrect if not an outright total misrepresentation of my views. Total. Complete. It's an untruth.

I have, in the past, pointed out that higher taxes on the wealthy in this nation were accompanied by the strongest growth and most equal society and strongest middle class, etc., but, to repeat, I've never voiced or written support for taxes that high. Never. In any form.

I won't misrepresent yours or anyone else's views, again, here or otherwise.

Don't misrepresent my stances.

Thank you.

Sevesteen said...

It took me less than a minute on Google to find posts on this blog from March 5, 2014, and October 25, 2010 talking about how great it was when we had a 91% marginal tax rate on the rich.

And that wasn't even the point.

Mo Rage said...

What I said--and meant--was that we had a far stronger economy and a strong, deep and wide middle class.

What I did not say or suggest was that we needed a 91% tax on the wealthy.

Again, I've never once said nor suggested that.

I never have nor would I. It is an impossibility, first. Second, it's not necessary. A small increase in what the wealthy pay would achieve what's necessary. That along with cutting the Defense budget could and would easily attain what's needed. Even separately they would strengthen the nation but done together? It would be phenomenal improvements and benefits.

So please, by all means, send a link to where you say I said such a thing. I can hardly wait.

Sevesteen said...

I did already, your posts from the dates I mentioned. Did you even bother to look at those dates?

I never claimed you wrote the exact words "I support a tax rate of 91%". Rather you generally support higher taxes for the wealthy, and mention that things were better during the 91% years, more growth, etc--general expressions of overall support.

Here's more (not all relate, but easy enough to sort out)

Mo Rage said...

Yes, statistically, it's true. During the years when the tax rates for the wealthy were higher, the nation, for a myriad of reasons, did far better. The tax rates were higher, we had more representation of people in middle-, lower- and working-class jobs by and in Unions, all kinds of things.

Again, I never said tax rates should again be 90%. Never. Not once. It's not possible and we'd be benefited by merely having a higher tax rate for the wealthy.

And it wouldn't take a huge increase.

Sevesteen said...

What good is a tax increase if it is associated with an even bigger spending increase--as has generally been the case since I've been paying attention? Tax the rich at whatever percent would bring in the most revenue, it won't be enough.

We simply cannot tax our way out of this mess, we have to freeze spending--including the "doesn't count" budgets like the overseas military budget. New spending has to be accompanied by a cut somewhere else. Voters have to stop falling for cuts to the projected rate of increase as actual budget cuts