ElneClare wrote:
I just found a new
blog to follow through a friend in high school, who happens to be an economist. So far from what I read the only "experts" that agree with Gbaji are people who worship Ayn Rand and the Heritage Foundation.
From what you read on what appears to be a very very liberal source? Forgive me if I apply a huge grain of salt to that. And he predictably has the same faulty definition of fiscal conservative I see all the time. Fiscal conservatism is *not* about balancing the budget. It's about reducing the tax burden. Period. Saying "where are the fiscal conservatives?" and pointing at conservatives opposing tax increases to pay off a deficit shows just how ignorant the person asking the question is.
The numbers I'm using are pretty clear. What's funny is that it seems like people like Joph just keep tossing the kitchen sink at the issue argument wise. "Oh well, what about Bush's Tax cuts? Ok. Well even if that isn't the cause, what about wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!? I heard someone on the TV say it, so it must be true!!! Oh. That's not it either. Well, what about Medicare Plan D that Bush spent money on! unfunded entitlements! That must be it."
None of those things add up. I have shown exactly where the deficit increase is coming from. And by far the largest portion of that deficit increase comes from increased spending on social services. Welfare and Medicaid have the largest percentage jumps. Social Security went up significantly. Medicare actually only increased modestly relative to its historical spending trendline (and actually may have declined as a result of the changes Bush made, but I haven't done the full math on that yet).
I'm not presenting just opinion. I'm presenting fact. And while I'm sure there are some economists who are willing to ignore the very clear numbers in front of us for partisan reasons, I'm not going to put any weight on their opinions. I'm looking at those clear numbers. And they're telling us in very clear language that the bulk of the current deficit is the result of spending increases over the last couple years. There's just no way to measure it and not come to that conclusion.
Quote:
Sadly any explanations of what happen in 2008 will be fought tooth and nail with cries of how the Democrats want to spend more, when history actually shows that the Repub, are bigger spenders and TARP and the Stimulus, prevented far worst outcomes that would have lead to higher unemployment and tighter credit market.
Where is this shown? I'm honestly curious. Are you just saying that because you heard it somewhere? Or do you have any numbers to back it up? Because we heard liberals say this for 8 years straight while Bush was in office, despite relatively flat spending levels and little if any new spending during that time period, and usually by doing silly math tricks (like saying that "we spent more money this year than ever before!!!", when that's true every year and is thus irrelevant). They constantly talked about Bush's deficits/debt even while the actual debt ratio was steady and sustainable.
And within one year of the Dems taking control we've seen spending the likes of which we haven't seen since the 40s. Yet some people still repeat the "The GOP are the big spenders" line as though they just haven't been paying attention the last couple years. How can anyone say that after looking at all the spending we just did? Spending which was opposed nearly universally by the GOP. Amusingly, when the GOP did that they were called obstructionists and the "party of NO" and partisans, and attacked for not working with Democrats more. Yet now, suddenly everyone forgets that it was the Dems who embarked on this spending spree and the GOP who steadfastly opposed every single step of the way.
The crisis we're in right now is the Dems fault. It's just baffling to me how anyone can argue otherwise and not know that they're lying while doing it. It's like watching someone rob someone else, but then trying to come up with excuses for what happened and then going so far as to blame the victim. It's just bizarre.
Quote:
In other words people who think everyone should be selfless and can't understand simple math.
There's some irony there.
Quote:
IF I had my say, the tax rate would go back to the rates from 1960. Even at half of the 1960 tax rate, we could get the deficit pay off and balance the budget without having to cut spending on safety net programs. Old NYTimes article that goes more in deep.
Everyone talks about how much higher the tax rates were "back then", and think that since it didn't hurt us then, it wont hurt us now. But the problem is that there were even more loopholes in the tax code then then there are now. The wealthy paid less taxes as a percentage of their total earnings back then. What has been found to work well tax wise is to lower the rates (flatten them a bit) and eliminate loopholes. But you have to do both.
And that still ignores the larger issue which is that increasing total tax revenue raised by the government is not a good thing. This is also something I just don't understand why people don't get. It's like you think it's good for someone to take more from you. How does that work?