The proposed 2012 budget...

[Bilge_Rat]

I read it.

It is the same, lame "solutions" right wing conservatives have been proposing for 30 years:

1. cut taxes;
2. cut spending;
3. balance the budget.

They will cut $178 B out of defence spending this year, but no specifics.

They will eliminate waste in government by firing 10% of all govt employess, but without affecting any services.

They will cut Medicare spending "by ending wasteful fraud", but without affecting the current level of benefits.

They will solve the Social Security crisis by forcing the President to come up with a plan.

And their magic weapon: producing untold amounts of savings by REPEALING THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN! which is repeated on a special BLUE page every few pages in case we dont get the point.

And what will this wonderful plan do for America? OMG, the cut in taxes will create an economic boom that will generate untold tax revenues to PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT!!!!

This was not written by politicians, it was written by the inmates of an insane asylum.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

I read it.

It is the same, lame "solutions" right wing conservatives have been proposing for 30 years:

1. cut taxes;
2. cut spending;
3. balance the budget.

They will cut $178 B out of defence spending this year, but no specifics.

They will eliminate waste in government by firing 10% of all govt employess, but without affecting any services.

They will cut Medicare spending "by ending wasteful fraud", but without affecting the current level of benefits.

They will solve the Social Security crisis by forcing the President to come up with a plan.

And their magic weapon: producing untold amounts of savings by REPEALING THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN! which is repeated on a special BLUE page every few pages in case we dont get the point.

And what will this wonderful plan do for America? OMG, the cut in taxes will create an economic boom that will generate untold tax revenues to PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT!!!!

This was not written by politicians, it was written by the inmates of an insane asylum.

1. Cut taxes
2. Cut spending
3. ????
4. PROFIT!

[August]

The Democrats held both houses of Congress and the Oval office yet they still didn't address the deficit other than to massively add to it.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I see you mocking one side, but ignoring the problems of your own. It's an all-too-common idea around here: "I'm right and you're stupid."

Steve,

I was quite ready to look at the GOP budget objectively and I am not one to mock my opponents in debate. In my day job, I analyse financial statements and reports all the time and know what to look for. This is not a budget per se, but simply a political document.

A lot of things dont add up. They say they want to cut spending, but never mention specific programs to cut. Most of the savings would seem to come from cutting out fraud and mismanagement, but that could not account for more than say a 5% savings. Despite that, they still have spending remaining at around 20% of GDP out to 2035-2040.


On taxes, the GOP wants to cut taxes and say the tax cut would have the following benefits:

According the analysis, this budget would produce the following results:

Faster economic growth:

$1.5 trillion in additional real gross domestic product over the decade.

More jobs:

Nearly one million new private sector jobs next year and 2.5 million new private sector jobs in the last year of the decade.

Higher wages:
$1.1 trillion in higher wages, salary and income.

More prosperity:
$9.35 trillion in higher real household income, translating into an average of $1,000 per year in higher income for each family.

By achieving sustainable levels of spending, deficits and debt – along with growth-oriented reforms to the tax code, this budget sets the nation on a path to prosperity.

However despite the tax cuts, they have government revenue as a % of GDP increasing from 17.4% in 2012 to 18.3% in 2020. How can the % go up if the tax rate is going down? They could presume that a higher percentage of the population will enter the workforce, but that would require an explanation of what demographic factors would account for that.

On the other hand, the GOP is also asking for a Tax Reform to close "loopholes" at the same time as they reduce taxes. If the overall effect of reform is to increase the taxable income of households and therefore the tax bite, that would account for the increase, but that would be a disguised tax increase, not a tax cut. This would also contradict their listed benefits (see above).

They also have the budget switching to surplus after 2020 without explaining how that would happen.

I am quite willing to discuss this document, but lets be clear on what it is: it is the political manifesto of the GOP. It is not a government budget.

@Bilge Rat
on your fraud and mismanagement section for savings it must also be considered that this really means more expense and bigger government.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

@Neal

Because.
They don't cut they just shift
They don't reduce they just move.
Balance.....yeah heard that one before

Ok, well, that's a different topic, politicians promising but not delivering. It doesn't preclude tax cuts, spending cuts and balancing the budget.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I don't think he's arguing the point that it's fair, but it certainly does poke holes in the "the solution to everything, including unemployment, is to lower taxes" argument.

Maybe so, but am I mistaken when I say I sense a degree of glee from a lot of people when the 93% (exorbitant) tax rates are mentioned?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Steve,

I was quite ready to look at the GOP budget objectively and I am not one to mock my opponents in debate. In my day job, I analyse financial statements and reports all the time and know what to look for. This is not a budget per se, but simply a political document.

A lot of things dont add up. They say they want to cut spending, but never mention specific programs to cut. Most of the savings would seem to come from cutting out fraud and mismanagement, but that could not account for more than say a 5% savings. Despite that, they still have spending remaining at around 20% of GDP out to 2035-2040.


On taxes, the GOP wants to cut taxes and say the tax cut would have the following benefits:



However despite the tax cuts, they have government revenue as a % of GDP increasing from 17.4% in 2012 to 18.3% in 2020. How can the % go up if the tax rate is going down? They could presume that a higher percentage of the population will enter the workforce, but that would require an explanation of what demographic factors would account for that.

On the other hand, the GOP is also asking for a Tax Reform to close "loopholes" at the same time as they reduce taxes. If the overall effect of reform is to increase the taxable income of households and therefore the tax bite, that would account for the increase, but that would be a disguised tax increase, not a tax cut. This would also contradict their listed benefits (see above).

They also have the budget switching to surplus after 2020 without explaining how that would happen.

I am quite willing to discuss this document, but lets be clear on what it is: it is the political manifesto of the GOP. It is not a government budget.

They also used an unemployment rate of 2.8% in their analysis (the line that says so has since been deleted) and they say that 2.5mm more jobs will be created, but yet the numbers for wages and salaries and inflation are about equal to the President's plan. Explain how you will achieve full employment below what most will argue is the natural rate of unemployment due to general and normal turnover in the labor market (4-5%)? Explain to me how adding 2.5mm more workers to an economy will not result in wage inflation? Explain to me how wage inflation will not lead to CPI inflation?

These numbers make absolutely no sense. It's smoke and mirrors.

It's smoke and mirrors.

There you have the solution, the economy will be fixed with a new tax on smoke and mirrors

[Bilge_Rat]

good point Mookie, the last time the U.S. unemployment rate dipped below 3% was in ....1953.

[Bilge_Rat]

I will make one serious comment. One of the proposed solution to the medicare/medicaid issue is to transfer responsibility to the individual states and have the federal government make lump sum payments, with limited future increases presumably capped to cost of living. Unstated, but presumably under the premise that individual states could administer Medicare/Medicaid at a lower cost by tailoring the system to local conditions.

This solution is what was implemented in Canada 30 years ago. In the late 70s, the can. federal govt. was facing ballooning deficits. At the time, the fed. govt was funding 50% of public health care and many other social programs and the other 50% was paid by the provinces. They came up with a similar plan where the responsibility for the programs would be transferred to the individual provinces and the fed. govt would only pay a lump sum annual payment, increased each year by a cost of living increase.

Well, it turned out to be a great plan for the federal government. Over the past 30 years, the federal share of health care spending has gone down from 50% to around 30% while the provinces now pay around 70%. The federal govt, up until 2008 was running surpluses while the provinces have chronic deficits and the political problem of trying to figure out what programs to cut or what taxes to raise.

So the GOP solution sounds fine on paper, but all you wind up doing is transferring the problem to the individual states.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Could some one explain this "lower-taxes-fixes-everything" idea? Simple Finn does not understand...

I assume that GOP wants to go competition with PRC and lure industries back to USA. In that case my simple mind says that they would have to either:
1. implement tariff system to make importing goods unfeasible and ease export
2. or cut wages.

In my understanding option 1. would conflict with St. Free Trade (patron saint of conservatives am I correct?) and would therefore be out of question. I personally doubt success of option 2...

[Armistead]

It really doesn't address the issues, just the same old theory of voodoo economics, make the rich richer and we'll see a trickle down effect from it.
Due to regulations, shelters, trade laws, etc, 10% now hold about 80% of all wealth. That's where selling out to corporations has got us. Make no doubt about it, lobbiest wrote this bill. Some things sound good, but they always do, cap and decide what and how much to spend on this or that.

As long as lobbiest and special interest run this nation we'll be changing dance partners every election.

I have no doubt we'll have to scrap medicare/caid/SS to a great degree in the future. That's where the money goes. Until we can solve healthcare, we'll continue to see mass unsubtainable debt. The only way to do it is make all health care nonprofit, regulated and affordable. The GOP
for healthcare is simply thin the herd...can't keep up, fall out and die.

[gimpy117]

is that that road map tax plan again? I read a report from a watchdog group that tore it a new one.

they said it would actually raise taxes for the middle class, while cutting taxes for...guess who!...the rich. and that it actually wouldn't solve the budget.


also...defense spending to "below 2008 levels" that probably means just below. But what they don't mention is that we were in a war in 2008, so what does that mean? will we be spending as if we were in a war for the next 10 years? I bet GE loves that. Free money! they don't even pay taxes here.

@gimpy

they said it would actually raise taxes for the middle class

No, it cuts taxes for them...but of courseshifts it to other taxes so they end up paying more taxes but different ones, same with the healthcare its just juggling.

I bet GE loves that. Free money! they don't even pay taxes here.

What strikes me is the accelerated cuts they propose in the WOT, have the publicans gone soft on terror?

@ whom it may concern

Of course it is Hap. The Dems are scared to death that the Republicans might actually address their run away spending habits so instead of actually considering the bill they will reject it because of who created it rather than what it contains.

Why do I get the idea that August actually hasn't read the document?
I suppose it goes with the problem of Haplo not seeing the document for what it is.

@Neal

Wait, how is that lame????

Because.
They don't cut they just shift
They don't reduce they just move.
Balance.....yeah heard that one before

@Mookie

It quotes the Heritage Foundation. And you're gonna try and tell me that this is a unbiased and objective document?

Be fair, it is in essence really from the heritage foundation. It is based on their commission and is their interpretation of the model they bought.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by kraznyi_oktjabr

Could some one explain this "lower-taxes-fixes-everything" idea? Simple Finn does not understand...

My personal belief is that the people responsible for creating taxes should be of the opinion that all taxes are evil. I'm not saying that they are, but too many people think that they're good, rather than just a tool.

In my ideal world there would be no taxes. Impossible? Of course. Government has no means to generate revenue, so if we want roads, police etc. we need taxes. If people were perfect we wouldn't need governments, but people aren't perfect, so we have governments and we have taxes.

But at the same time you mock the idea of lower taxes fixing things, I don't see you addressing the opposite. Are you saying that higher taxes can fix everything? If that's the case then shouldn't you be advocating 100% of everything we make going to the government, and then the wonderful people we elect can decide how much we need to live on?

I see you mocking one side, but ignoring the problems of your own. It's an all-too-common idea around here: "I'm right and you're stupid."