.
.
.
Challenging even the most rudimentary forms of logic, I have watched jaw agape as Democrats (and to a more limited but even more embarrassing level, Republicans) try to shift blame for the recent U.S. credit downgrade from AAA to AA+ by the Standard and Poors credit agency onto congressional Tea Party members. In some of the best examples of Orwellian double talk since Goebbels, Democrats have called Tea Party members “terrorists.” “We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Mike Doyle (D-Pa) said, according to sources in a closed door Democratic Caucus meeting. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html#ixzz1Ue7eFem4 Not wanting to miss out on the witch hunt, Vice President Joe Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html#ixzz1UeBefenA
To understand how hatefully misguided these statements are, let’s take a very brief stroll down not to distant history lane. Other than brief periods following wars, the United States did not practice overspending until Franklin Roosevelt unnecessarily extended the Great Depression with dramatically increased federal government spending. http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/02/franklin-roosevelt-and-his-new-deal-prolonged-the-great-depression/ This abusive program of misuse of public money continued and accelerated through administrations led by Democrats and Republicans alike culminating with President Obama’s useless burning of the American Dollar through the terribly misguided “stimulus” programs that even in his words “weren’t as shovel ready as we would have liked.” Well, whats a trillion dollars or two between friends.
All of this overspending means that an ever increasing amount of our country’s “revenue” (this means tax dollars) goes to pay the interest on that overwhelming debt. Given that somewhere between 45 to 49% of the people in the United States pay no federal income tax at all an ever DECREASING number of people is having to pay an ever INCREASING amount of federal income taxes. The top 50 percent of wage earners in the United States pay nearly all income taxes (97 percent), according to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). With such a disparity between the people who pay and how much they pay, it should not be surprising that a growing number of people pay no taxes at all or get money back from the government. Who Does Not Pay Federal Income Tax? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5417525_not-pay-federal-income-tax.html#ixzz1UeGC1f3X This increased debt (measured as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product [‘GDP’]) puts continually more pressure on the debt worthiness of the United States. It is this decades long problem exacerbated by huge recent OVERSPENDING that created the credit downgrade environment – recent debt ceiling discussions are a tiny footnote of the problem.
Seeing the kidnapping of our children’s economic well being as a bad thing, the Tea Party movement swept large numbers into congress with a single command, “stop spending more money than we take in. Treat American finances responsibly.” What a horrible and undemocratic command, to be careful and frugal with tax payer dollars. Ironically, the mainline electeds on both sides of the aisle giggled at the naivete of these new fiscally conservative troops, not taking them seriously until the contrived “debt ceiling” debate began. I say contrived because normally debt ceiling increase debates (and there have been dozens of them) allow the Republicans to pound their fists on the table about taxes and spending and the Democrats to talk about the “rich” paying their fair share with ever more taxes so that we don’t starve children and the elderly and then both groups figure out ways to funnel ever more money to their favorite causes.
The process started out normally this time around with each side taking their traditional positions and then something funny (to me, not to them) happened. These dange Tea Party members actually meant what they said – no more spending. When the “Boehner Bill” compromise was introduced, Mr. Boehner was shocked to find that these Tea Party members actually meant what they said – balance the budget and stop overspending. Both sides stared in terror as their sacred cows were placed at risk. The “usual” political games where hands were slammed on desks while nothing really changed, was being threatened. The Democrats might have to stop pouring government money over their captured group of government dependent voters. The Republicans might have to ignore special interest lobbyists and their demands for corporate welfare or government subsidies. Both parties might actually have to act in the best interest of America rather than simply acting in their own best interest of reelection. The Tea Party members actions had NOTHING to do with the credit downgrade – we can all thank the previous inaction of both parties for that.
What the Tea Party did this summer is for the first time make all Americans realize our national mortality – we can no longer say that we can do everything for everyone. America will actually have to live within its means. We must actually make choices about how we spend government money and admit that it is not a magically replenishing well. The Tea Party made us look in the mirror and ask “what are our national priorities?” I think that is a good thing.
Children and the elderly are two of my favorite causes, so yes, tax the rich fairly. Of course, GW prefers that we sink into a 3rd world country with gated communities and other such enclaves.
Just the opposite Rapscallion. I believe in a meritocracy where everyone is compensated for the sweat of their brow.
You mean the kind of meritocracy where rich kids get into ivy league colleges just because their Dad went there?
And the poor, black and brown have a much higher chance of ending up in jail for the same offense that someone rich and/or white would manage to slip out of, cementing their already diminished economic possibilities? That kind?
FYI Nelson, I have a degree in the Political science and must say that what is going on right now was taught in my classroom.
It has to play it self out by way of free market forces and it will be ugly.
Just imagine, you are on the safe ship whose capacity is 50 persons and there are 100 people to rescue.
At which point you will jump into the water to make room for your fellow man?……. Huh?
Do you see how stupid is your socialistic concept?
So the ship must sink first.
Vern and anon, those statements are both non sequitors. That is not a meritocracy, that is a form of aristocracy which I oppose.
My statement isn’t a non sequitor (sic) at all. It’s proof that we live in anything BUT a meritocracy.
You mean like hedge fund managers and the like who create nothing but wealth for themselves–those who know how to play the financial markets like a private casino? What does Carl Icahn create when he loots companies and causes massive layoffs?
That’s some brow sweat there, pal.
“What the Tea Party did this summer is for the first time make all Americans realize our national mortality – we can no longer say that we can do everything for everyone.”
Actually, what they did along with Obama, who bought into their strategy, was to ignore the unmistakable cry by the American people to concentrate on jobs and growth and instead decided to focus on the debt issue. THAT is what just happened.
I get that you don’t understand the connection between a crippling national debt and economic growth. That failure to understand is why congress has been able to spend us into oblivion.
It is possible to have economic growth, and healthy job gains, in spite of debt. This debt “crisis” has been exaggerated for political gain.
It’s been exaggerated 1) by a political party which has always wanted to get rid of Social Security, Medicare, and other things that help people who aren’t rich; and 2) also by a President who seems hell-bent on winning re-election as a compromising “centrist.”
Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine” in action.
So, GW, why do you consistently avoid the problems created by the Bush tax cuts that benefitted only the wealthy?
Geometrically, this comment just looks lonely here, since Geoff won’t respond to it. So … I think I’ll put up a chart here to show what Rap is talking about.
The chart on the bottom shows how the deficit will continue to grow if we extend the Bush Tax Cuts. Which the GOP is insisting on. Long story short, it’ll be a real crisis down the road. Whereas if Congress just allows them to expire – if Congress does nothing – look at the top chart – the deficit VANISHES in five years. We knew the Bush Tax Cuts were a major driver of the deficit, but we didn’t know HOW major till now. (from my “In Search of the Mythical Job Creators” post http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/06/in-search-of-the-mythical-job-creators/ )
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Rapscallion,
Yet again, another liberal meme that is patently false. The two-year extension of the Obama tax cuts (fka the Bush tax cuts) is estimated at $544 billion – the vast majority ($463 billion) will go to families making less than $250,000. But go on with your fairy tales.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/07/news/economy/tax_cut_deal_obama/index.htm
What I find funny about most of these responses is that NONE of them deal with the real question of whether striving for a balanced budget is desirable – that is the real question to me. Instead, you raise a bunch of deflections that ignore the true question.
Of course it’s desirable. Duh. You mean you aren’t capable of assuming that the vast majority of people would find balancing a budget to be desirable?
The question isn’t “if.” It’s “how”…how do we do it, how fast, and what is its priority in relationship to growth and jobs in a down economy.
I . . . agree with you anon. If balancing the budget is desirable, what does that mean about claims that the Tea Party members were “terrorists?”
You really shouldn’t focus so much on a particular day’s hyperbolic rhetoric du jour. You’re just playing the game the way the media wants you to.
Because they are, essentially, the goons for the Koch brothers and the like, who use the rhetoric of “balancing the budget” as a means to cut the government’s invlovement in infrastructure and environmental protection while ensuring that their share of the pie is even bigger. I’d say that the willing destruction of a first rate country bsaed only upon self aggrandizement is an act of terrorism, yes.
I haven’t really seen any bloody wars fought over infrastructure development. The battles have been more over funding for NPR, medicare, social security and more taxes on the 50% who pay 100% of federal taxes.
The infrastructure is doomed by this odd attitude that the put upon 50%, which is really a much smaller number who have more wealth than the vast majority of the country, must be saved from the horror of paying up. When you control most of the money, well, the bills have to come from somewhere.
I know–let’s defund Planned Parenthood too! Just so we’re sure it’s also an ideological battle against the poor who need those services. Ever thought of cutting oil subsidies, by the way?
I think that most corporate subsidies are mis spent government money. Not against doing away with most of those.
Agreed–so that would be some revenue enhancement that would help. Will you give that little turd Norquist a call about it?
Corperate subsities are usually specific tax breaks that appy only to a few companies.
What does anyone think all those thosands of pages in the tax code have in them. 90% of it is special loopholes that some lobbyist got inserted.
Get rid of most of them and without raising rates you would see a substancial increace in revenue. Problem is no one wants their loophole closed and they will spend lots of money to make sure it is not.
One could probally actually lower the overall rates and still see revenue increase.
I am not perpared to hold my breath however.
but I do favor a 50/50 mixed of revenue increases and budget cuts over time to get back to a balance. Job creation must first be # 1 priority, no jobs no revenue.
Trying to balance it to quickly will likely result in more job losses and a higher deficit, which we certainly cannot afford.