Jump to content

John Young: Republicans are shameless merchants of debt


Recommended Posts

Boasting of his supposed business wizardry, in 2016 Donald Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "I'm the king of debt. I love debt." He didn't mention also being a connoisseur of bankruptcy.

 

Ah, debt, sweet as wine. Love it, don't you?

 

You may not, in fact. However the affaire d'amour pulses and throbs this week in our Republican-controlled Congress.

 

If Congress follows through on Trump's urgings -- and the House seems quite inclined, the Republican tax plan would saddle the nation with $2.5-$5.0 trillion in new debt over the next decade.

 

Hey, tea party people. You kept telling us additional debt was a bad thing.

 

Wasn't it the original sin to borrow, under Barack Obama, to rescue the nation from the worst economic moment since the Depression? Yes it was. I heard you say so.

 

Now? It would appear you love debt. You want it in gobs, especially that debt means tax breaks for people who don't need them.

 

Actually, this is not new, and not a news. It's not even a change of heart.

 

Ronald Reagan's budgets employed a "magic asterisk" that basically meant he – and we -- would look the other way when things didn't add up.

 

Dick Cheney famously said, "Deficits don't matter." He and George W. Bush turned a deaf ear to John McCain's denunciations of funding two wars at once off the books.

 

When Reagan used his immense popularity to restructure the tax system and reducing tax brackets, he could have insisted on harvesting some revenue to help curb the red ink that had been accumulating under his leadership, but he didn't!

 

The Republicans at the time showed they were more interested in trickle-down schemes than in paying for the government they had bought. That included the largest peacetime military buildup in the history of the world.

 

Now, "revenue neutral" seems the height of responsibility. What Trump and the House Republicans are doing is constructing a fiscal hole that will require future generations to account for the largesse of the moment.

 

Yes, the taxpayers of tomorrow would have to find revenue that this tax plan shut off by way of corporate tax cuts to enrich CEOs and stockholders.

 

They would have to find revenue lost when this tax plan abolished the alternative minimum tax (AMT) to benefit people like Trump. Oh, yes; the only tax return we've seen from Trump, from 2005, showed him paying $31 million via the AMT.

 

Ah, but he assured us that the tax changes he's promoting wouldn't help himself. The only way to know this would be to see his tax returns and if he's been paying any tax at all those years since.

 

As it is, we can trust one thing only – that this is one more lie in a sandstorm of them.

 

The House tax bill stands to enrich the rich further, and for what? I'll tell you what: to aid designs to strangle the federal government by artificial means.

 

Sen. Chuck Schumer has it right when he says that the ultimate objective of these tax plans is to make it harder to justify spending for things we need – infrastructure, health care, aid to the poorest of the poor.

 

The thing about those magic asterisks of the Reagan years: The bad math was wholly intentional. The deficits were the design. That red ink made it easier for so-called fiscal conservatives to say we couldn't afford so much government.

 

For this Congress, that red ink would be sign that they could pass one, just one, policy. Something they have not done in the 10 months that Republicans have controlled the House, the Senate and the White House.

 

If this monstrosity passes, Trump who got where he is via the "debt and dodge" approach to business, would be there with pen in hand. To sign in red?

Yes, let's run the United States just like he would – into bankruptcy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Neue regel....the entire Dem Party is Conservative compared to the gop

 

 

Sen. Chuck Schumer has it right when he says that the ultimate objective of these tax plans is to make it harder to justify spending for things we need – infrastructure, health care, aid to the poorest of the poor.

 

 

Starve the beast

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives to limit government spending[1][2][3] by cutting taxes, in order to deprive the federal government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force it to reduce spending.

 

The term "the beast", in this context, refers to the United States Federal Government, which funds numerous programs and government agencies using mainly American taxpayer dollars.[4] These programs include: education, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defence.[3]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economic analysis[edit]

James M. Buchanan, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, helped develop the fiscal illusion hypothesis: "It's obvious, borrowing allows spending to be made that will yield immediate political payoffs without the incurring of any immediate political cost."[11] In their book Democracy in Deficit (1977), Buchanan and Richard E. Wagner suggest that the complicated nature of the U.S. tax system causes fiscal illusion and results in greater public expenditure than would be the case in an idealized system in which everyone is aware in detail of what their share of the costs of government is.[12]

Empirical evidence shows that Starve the Beast may be counterproductive, with lower taxes actually corresponding to higher spending. An October 2007 study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer of the National Bureau of Economic Research found: "[...] no support for the hypothesis that tax cuts restrain government spending; indeed, [the findings] suggest that tax cuts may actually increase spending. The results also indicate that the main effect of tax cuts on the government budget is to induce subsequent legislated tax increases."[13]

William Niskanen, chairman emeritus of the libertarian Cato Institute, criticized “starve the beast.” If deficits finance 20% of government spending, then citizens perceive government services as discounted. Services that are popular at 20% off the listed price would be less popular at full price. He hypothesized that higher revenues could constrain spending, and found strong statistical support for that conjecture based on data from 1981 to 2005.[14][15] Another Cato researcher, Michael New, tested Niskanen’s model in different time periods and using a more restrictive definition of spending (non-defense discretionary spending) and arrived at a similar conclusion.[16]

Professor Leonard E. Burman of Syracuse University testified to a U.S. Senate committee in July 2010 that: "My guess is that if President Bush had announced a new war surtax to pay for Iraq or an increase in the Medicare payroll tax rate to pay for the prescription drug benefit, both initiatives would have been less popular. Given that the prescription drug benefit only passed Congress by one vote after an extraordinary amount of arm-twisting, it seems unlikely that it would have passed at all if accompanied by a tax increase. Starve the beast doesn’t work."[17]

Economist Paul Krugman summarized as: "Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit." He wrote that the "...beast is starving, as planned..." and that "Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they’re not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs. And they’re not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan—and there isn’t any plan, except to regain power."[18]

Historian Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan, has called Starve the Beast "the most pernicious fiscal doctrine in history", and blames it for the increase in US government debt since the 1980s.[19]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me a liberal bill aimed at curbing spending. 

 

 

Here's 2

 

Clinton cut the Deficit and had a Surplus

 

Obama cut the Deficit in Half

 

that all went out the window with the AWOL Oil Puppet....and now we have the Tramp...and more Failed Trickle Down

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, benson13 said:

Show me a liberal bill aimed at curbing spending. 

 

 

Here's 2

 

Clinton cut the Deficit and had a Surplus

 

Obama cut the Deficit in Half

 

that all went out the window with the AWOL Oil Puppet....and now we have the Tramp...and more Failed Trickle Down

 

Well, forgetting for a moment I asked for a bill, let’s talk about Clinton and, of course, the other half of the equation, Gingrich. If you’re suggesting we do what they agreed to do and sign, I’m on board 100%. 

 

Lets back that together. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gingrich???????????????????....LOL

 

don't get Snowed by the gop

 

 

The GOP has been destroying the Middle Class slowly since Reagan. The GOP's mantra since Reagan has been: No middle class, no republic: The GOP has been planning to destroy America’s safety net and kill democracy for the past 37 years plus. Newt Gingrich openly bragged at the Heritage Foundation that the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress were going to “break out of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt model.” That “model,” of course, created what we today refer to as “the middle class.” Ever since the election of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have been working overtime to kneecap institutions that support the American middle class. And, as any working-class family can tell you, the GOP has had some substantial successes, particularly in shifting both income and political power away from voters and towards billionaires and transnational corporations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, benson13 said:

Gingrich???????????????????....LOL

 

don't get Snowed by the gop

 

 

The GOP has been destroying the Middle Class slowly since Reagan. The GOP's mantra since Reagan has been: No middle class, no republic: The GOP has been planning to destroy America’s safety net and kill democracy for the past 37 years plus. Newt Gingrich openly bragged at the Heritage Foundation that the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress were going to “break out of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt model.” That “model,” of course, created what we today refer to as “the middle class.” Ever since the election of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have been working overtime to kneecap institutions that support the American middle class. And, as any working-class family can tell you, the GOP has had some substantial successes, particularly in shifting both income and political power away from voters and towards billionaires and transnational corporations.

 

It was Gingrich’s bill that Clinton signed. That was the legislation that led us to the prosperity you pointed to. 

 

Why wouldnt we we want to repeat that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, benson13 said:

Show me a liberal bill aimed at curbing spending. 

 

 

Here's 2

 

Clinton cut the Deficit and had a Surplus

 

Obama cut the Deficit in Half

 

that all went out the window with the AWOL Oil Puppet....and now we have the Tramp...and more Failed Trickle Down

Clinton cut the debt with strong help from the Republican congress...

He just didn't show up and do it..

 

Obama cut the deficit?

He tripled it and then cut it and all the while we have $10 trillion more in debt...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

gingrich had little to do with Clintons Economy

 

What we can say with certainty is that Clinton served as president during the last eight years of a decade-long economic expansion that stands as the longest boom in U.S. history. Clinton saw a gain of nearly 21 million jobs during his tenure (January 1993 – January 2001).Certainly Clinton deserves some credit for that remarkable economic growth, but just as certainly he can’t claim all the credit. How much he deserves is a matter of opinion that will probably be debated for years to come. By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly, and it slipped into recession in March 2001, just weeks after George W. Bush was sworn in.

 

Clinton’s major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. Republicans denounced it as the “largest tax increase in history,” though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. Republican Rep. Newt Gingrich predicted: “The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit.” But just the opposite happened. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery turned into a roaring boom, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock-market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.

 

Clinton can also be given credit for reappointing Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve, where the economist was widely credited with a masterly performance in handling interest rates. This was an unusual move for a Democratic president, as Greenspan is a libertarian Republican who had been a close economic adviser to Republican Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Greenspan and Clinton worked closely, and in 2007 Greenspan praised Clinton’s handling of the federal deficit and his support for liberalized trade, calling him “the best Republican president we’ve had in a while.”

 

But many other factors, having little or nothing to do with government, also were at work during the Clinton years. Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive. Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the world’s rapidly growing trade.

 

Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clinton’s presidency, partly because of squabbling and cheating among the OPEC oil-producing nations. As late as 1999 crude oil was selling for less than $10 per barrel and gasoline hit a low of 95 cents per gallon at the pump, a price that included the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax increase that Clinton had supported and Republicans had denounced.

Sources

Reaganomics vs. Rubinomics.” Business Week, 21 June 2004.

Wallace, Kelly. “President Clinton announces another record budget surplus.” CNN, 27 Sept. 2000.

Treasury Tax Expert to Bush: Clinton’s Increase WASN’T The Biggest.” FactCheck.org, 16 Apr. 2004.

Felsenthal, Mark. “Greenspan faults Democrats on trade.” USA Today, 23 Sept. 2007

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then there's mom, or grandma who should be in a nursing home, but the family can't pay the increased bills due to cuts in medicaid, so she's 'upstairs' in the 'guest room' now..... while sonny boy continues to live in the basement..... "Making America Great Again!" then theres the national debt which skyrockets, which means the Government prints more money to pay the interest and YOUR savings and retirement money is worth less and less......"WINNING!"... Just another Trump con for his band of suckers aka Trumpkins.
---------------------------------------------------
 
Higher interest rates and inflation will eat up all or more of any tax savings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, benson13 said:

you mean like allowing 9-11 by not doing a thing to prevent it?...or Maybe Tax Cuts for the Top 1% and the Corporations?...or maybe you mean Lying us into War????

 

which one????

 

One of my favorite questions to ask on this forum. Pre 9-11. Would you have supported a travel ban?

 

yes or no is sufficient. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, neue regel said:

Show me a liberal bill aimed at curbing spending. 

In a republican controlled congress? lol. Don't forget the Speaker is the one who introduces bills and decides what will be presented to the floor. Here is what the Dems say about the GOP budget.

 

Democrats were swift to criticize the approach, saying it was an attempt to hide tax changes that will hurt, not help, middle-class families. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the bill was shaping up to be “a bunch of false promises to the middle class.” Republicans, he said, “know the details — the specifics of what they’re really about — will be hard to argue in the sunlight.”

 

If you are middle class or below you are fucked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...