An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Quotes for the Day
“We have to consider everything. We have to put taxes on the table.”
“There is nothing good for America that will come out of arguing which part of the debt each party is responsible for.”
- – Former Republican Senator Pete Domenici, the co-leader of an independent bipartisan group to be announced today. It’s goal: To study and recommend ways to reduce the national debt, not to be confused with the similarly minded commissions that Congress and the White House are considering.
29 Responses to “Quotes for the Day”
How on earth are we ever going to get out of our mess without taxes? All that wornout, gratuitous anti-tax blather is clueless and irresponsible. Seriously, how are we ever going to keep from handing down tremendous debts to other generations of Americans if we don't all step up to the plate? Taxes should have been back on the table long, long ago. You want to see America continue losing influence and become less and less relevant? Keep ignoring the debt, stick with an obsolete political platform, stick your head in the sand. That'll do it.
Seriously, how are we ever going to keep from handing down tremendous debts to other generations of Americans
We could start by not generating the debt in the first place, especially when it's used to reward CEOs, bankers, unions, special interest groups and politician's pet projects.
But actually I agree with Domenici that higher taxes have to be on the table. The budget is too unbalanced, and NEITHER party has shown any ability to limit spending. I don't think we can get out of this hole purely by limiting spending.
Finally, a real grown up talking.
I don't want to pay more taxes, you don't want to pay more taxes. No one wants to pay more taxes.
But for too long, we have been having our cake and eating it, too.
Crawling out of this mess is going to take some sacrifice. EVERYONE is going to have to contribute.
We need to both spend less and pay down debt.
Debts must be paid. The ledger must balance.
In Indiana, the government isn't allowed to borrow, so it has to set up a “rainy day fund” to cover years when tax revenues are low. I think that this would be a good time to discuss preventing the federal government from borrowing except at war time, that is, war bonds only.
Of course, then we'd also have to address that excess use of war problem.
Vera,
Once again, it seems like you are putting emotion ahead of fact. The facts are that the government has taken in somewhere between 18 and 21 percent of GDP since the 1970s. If you say that taxes should have been on the table long ago, you believe that spending should be allowed to increase as a percentage of GDP over time.
Said differently, we've been baking about the same amount of cake (on a relative basis) year after year for 25 years but our desire to eat cake keeps going up so we buy cake from China and other countries and pay for it with money from our kids.
Pull up any tables on revenue and spending and you'll see the revenue line is flat (with bumps) and the spending line is continually increasing.
Steve,
Once again, you mischaracterize what I have written. What part about “we need to both spend less and pay down debt” do you not seem to understand?
The magic money tree in the back yard is all tapped out. It is going to take sacrifice to claw our way out of this fiscal ditch.
Of course taxes “have” to be looked at. The last thing incumbents, especially, will dare do is reduce spending. That would risk loss of the vote-bought and other cheaper constituents, whereas they'll approve, and even consider it “responsible” and even “courageous” to face the challenge of higher taxes.
All that's missing now that misspending this year has dwarfed what happened before, and the chance of getting GOP incumbents to help shoulder the political burden of higher taxes (leave it to the GOP to hand something to the irresponsible-to-date Demmies — GOP dummies), is to announce there are even bigger financial problems with Washington than known before, and host a “crisis summit” to get an idea of what new taxes to levy, and how high to raise current taxes. (income, motor vehicle fuels…)
“The facts are that the government has taken in somewhere between 18 and 21 percent of GDP since the 1970s.”
The portion of the Trustees' Reports Summary from past years on Social Security and Medicare, that explicitly noted to the public that future costs of the programs will cause federal expenses to exceed the historical norms, were deleted by the Obama administration this past year from the Reports Summary. Their solution to the coming problem is to remove remarks that it's noteworthy that the federal government would grow to historically unprecedented dimensions. We were being prepared for something like this.
“rainy day fund”
Can't be envisioned with respect for Washington. They'd just spend the money (and more) now and leave IOUs in the fund just as with Social Security and Medicare trust funds, to leave it to others later to raise extra taxes or borrow more, or reduce spending elsewhere to redirect the money as sought.
This already is true for our future with Social Security and Medicare. Rather than correct it, ObamaCo simply removed some of the Trustees' notes related to the seriousness of the consequences.
If Washington DC had a rainy day fund you can rest assured they'd declare every day a rainy one.
This isn't just a problem with Obama and co. Don't forget that one of the things the GOP most strenuously fought in the healthcare plan was cuts to Medicare, specifically cuts to the Medicare Advantage program. That program is a very high cost give away to the insurance companies with little added benefit to seniors. It was clearly a budget buster that doesn't make any sense. Yet, the GOP fought for it mightily. Neither party can be trusted to cut spending.
Bush 41 and reagan raised taxes. Tax cuts without spending cuts is Republican cynicism…
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bar…
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=47738
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18744
Did Reagan balance his budget?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa013.html
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Democratic Plan: Wail about deficits when Republicans are in power; ignore them when Democrats are in power.
Republican Plan: Wail about deficits when Democrats are in power; ignore them when Republicans are in power.
DLS complains that Obama took projections out of the report. Not new. Bush funded wars outside the budget so they wouldn't count. Goose and Gander, pot and kettle…and yes, I know the two are not precisely the same, but the deceptive theme vis-a-vis spending and budgetary sleight of hand is. Sort of like pols of all stripes selling the myth that there realy is a Socialy Security Trust Fund. They all do it. It's not a D *or* an R problem; it's a D *and* an R problem.
Domenici is right. Why didn't he ever say it when he was in the Senate? Hmmmm.
Why didn't he ever say it when he was in the Senate? Hmmmm.”
Good post. And when you are in the Senate, or House, or WH, THAT IS the problem
“DLS complains that Obama took projections out of the report. Not new. Bush funded wars outside the budget so they wouldn't count.”
This distraction goes nowhere. The issue is that ObamaCo has not addressed entitlement reform, has fiscally outdone anything Bush or predecessors have done meriting criticism, by far, and whose act related to warnings about the worst state of affairs in the future has been to remove the warnings.
DLS,
I see two foxes, one in each chicken coop. I regret that your vision has become so narrow that you can see but one. :->
There is one chicken coop here. There are GOP foxes as well as (mainly) Dem foxes in it.
All that money gone, in exchange for next to nothing, resulting in all the huge new deficits and debt. All that's missing is one or more public statements by China about fiscal irresponsibility by Washington to be used as a pretext rationaliation for raising taxes.
DLS,
As you know we are in agreement about profligate and useless spending under Democratic control. Like you, I opposed the stimulus package as more democratic wish list than real stimulative substance. Like you, I opposed the continuing resolution with its nearly 2000 earmarks. Like you, I oppose HCR as fiscally irresponsible and economically potentially devasting.
Unlike you, I do not see meaningful distinctions between R's and D's where fiscal irresponsibility is concerned. Bush II began his term with a surplus and jacked it into record setting deficits. The fact that Obama has doubled down on that (including continuing Bush's TARP bailout policy – which, btw I also opposed) does not absolve Bush or make R's less culpable than D's. They share equally in this oblivion to fiscal reality.
R's say, “Revenues and short term deficits don't matter. Deficits will self-correct in the out years.”
D's say, “Expenditures and short term deficits don't matter. Deficits will self-correct in the out years.”
Notice that the second sentence “Deficits will self-correct in the out years” is identical for both parties when in power. I do not object to the criticism of D's on your part. I do object to your partisan disinclination to give equal “credit” to the R's. Oh yes, I use the phrase “your partisan disinclination” advisedly, understanding that you hold yourself out to be nonpartisan, though, I confess, lack of partisanship is not something with which I associate your comments.
Now, I must assume my watchful post to see if the local bobcat has returned to the patio, a matter of great interest in the household.
“They share equally in this oblivion to fiscal reality.”
I say the Dems have earned more, after a year with them having their way.
I do not believe the GOP would have overspent this much.
I also do not faith in federal deficits to correct themselves. “In God we trust — nobody else.”
“I do not believe the GOP would have overspent this much.”
Ok, that's a valid opinion, and may be accurate, though the Bush crew sure threw the cash around without any thought of revenue balance on the other side. The R's would also not have presented this/these hideous HCR bill/bills, in my view.
No sign of the bobcat yet. It probably won't come by when we're watching for it. They are beautiful animals up close. I'd not seen one as close as five feet until a couple of weeks ago when one walked past the bedroom door while casing the patio, and have now seen him/her twice at close range, the other time perched on a neighbor's wall.
Best regards.
“the Bush crew sure threw the cash around without any thought of revenue balance on the other side.”
Spending as they did was called “compassionate.” It also moved many to vote Dem in 2006 and 2008.
I wonder if David Frum still believes in “compassion,” which arguably would buy more votes than 1990s “virtue.” (I know Andrew Sullivan does, and David Brooks probably does.) Hmmm — GOP, the party of virtuous compassion. [cough]
* * *
“No sign of the bobcat yet.”
Have you thought of trapping it? A wildlife agency or some interested party would probably claim it.
Well, bankrupting a nation is hardly compassionate, though many, pols in particular, are unable to see past the immediate hue and cry.
The bobcat's ok. We enjoy seeing it from time to time…I've never had a problem with any that I've seen on the golf courses. They, indiginous wildlife, have primary rights in Scottsdale these days. We humans are graciously allowed to live among them if we choose.
Scottsdale — golf course(s) — life's rough.
As for “compassionate” conservatism, not one liberal in a thousand understood, or at least accepted, that in this way, Bush and others like him were liberal “conservatives.” (Nor would these Republicans have poached loyal Dem voters by imitating them. Won't the GOP ever learn? And no, maintaining or increasing spending on entitlements and other goodies but reducing taxes to postpone the unpleasant isn't the solution.)
As far as who spends more, I see a see a completely different driver: clout. Reagan had it in spades, Reagan got huge increases in spending. Clinton blew it on an elitist health care plan and moving skirts. Obama has had both popularity and a one-sided congress. Bush Jr. did well after 9/11, then . . . .
Okay, fine, it's not a perfect match, but it still makes more sense than Democrat or Republican.
I'd agree to pay a percentage or two in higher taxes if:
1) we run every illegal alien out of the country,
the tax rate is doubled for elected officials and government workers (people who control how our tax money is spent or are paid by the US taxpayer).
2) welfare recipients, wards of the US taxpayer, aren't allowed to vote or participate in the political process, in any way, until they become permanently independent,
3) income averaging is re-instituted by the IRS,
4) unemployed workers aren't required to pay taxes for a period equal to the amount of time they were jobless (allows them to pay delinquent bills or bad debt back before Uncle Sam slips his greasy paws back in their wallets),
5) entertainment (client dinners) is 100% deductible again (when this was cut, it put lots of restaurants out of business),
6) TIPS are no longer considered taxable income,
7) Combat Soldiers/Veterans, excluding non-combat MOS (only the men or their surviving spouses, who truly faced our enemies in battle, e.g. Combat Infantry Badge recipients) live tax free for life, and
I see the Dems as spending more — they've demonstrated it this past year to a breathtaking extent (though Krugman and left-activists in general actually believe not enough has been spent on a stimulus, much more needs to be spent, plus there “needs” to be vast new spending on all kinds of great new undertakings by the federal government, of which health care for all is merely the best-known).
Obama's proposed spending freeze has many of us wary — it's a prelude to more spending later as well as the tax increases and new taxes for which this spending freeze proposal is psychological and political preparation of the electorate. However, at least some farther lefties are reacting as they have been greatly betrayed, loathing the very idea of a spending freeze and demanding, as one of the “male” companions of Stephanie Miller whined on Miller's childish all-girl show this morning, new taxes, naturally on “the rich,” and as the “male” whined, “on the windfall profits [undefined or unspecified].” What's more interesting this morning is the observation being made already that some more realistic lefties are now accusing others of being the way far lefties have been about Obama and about the nation's future so far, “ponies and rainbows, clap our hands and wish really hard and everything will be wonderful,” and how Obama's spending freeze proposal
is a rude shock to many.
Also interesting was that I actually watched (or actually, listened while I did other things) to television last night — I can receive C-SPAN. On C-SPAN was a group of Old Guard Washington, DC fixtures from both political parties, that were giving the Old Guard's older-DC-fixture standard presentation of the fiscal state of affairs the nation faces, and the need to make “tough decisions,” with Pete Domenici repeating several times that higher taxes “have to be on the table.” Expect more people in Washington to start trying to shove the message down our throats, as these people are starting to, that new, higher taxes are needed. (Their Old Guard DC-fixture style has an elitist nature to it that I find particularly irritating.) There will be more “preparatory” messages of this kind coming from Washington, in advance of more taxes. I can smell it, already, coming from these dinosaurs. Big Government Establishment asserts itself.
http://bipartisanpolicy.org/
“Obama has had both popularity and a one-sided congress.”
Unfortunately, the public doesn't like the way the Dems have “sided” this past year.
Meanwhile, the far left is angry because they actually believe the problem is that the Dems have not been far left enough! They have one person in mind often at whom to direct their ire. This is in addition to Mr. Geithner and Mr. Summers, who already have far lefties' and everyone else's ire directed their way.
Rahm Emanuel
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487…
My point is pretty simple: they're both irresponsible spenders when they get the chance, but turn more responsible as they lose clout. Republicans love spending money on different things, but they're both money addicts.
At this point, I have to admire and support Obama for even trying to go down the Clinton path. I'm curious to see how congress eventually reacts to his initiative.
“I'm curious to see how congress eventually reacts to his initiative.”
Me, too. I hope this isn't a handoff or initial move in a sequence involving Congress and tax increases, whcih it may well be (under the guise of “responsibility”). Pass, set, spike.
Now it's time to listen to Thom Hartmann. I wonder if he's still fixated on the Supreme Court's “new Dred Scott decision” or if he'll now criticize the “Third Way corporatist” Obama for acting like a Republican for suggesting a spending freeze. (Will he openly suspect Rahm Emanuel, etc.)
Speaking of Clinton-like behavior and Rahm Emanuel (possibly hated more by lefties than Geithner):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB200014240527487…