|
Last night on CNBC's Closing Bell, Congressman Barney Frank said:
I think at this point, there needs to be an immediate increase in spending, and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second, uh, a second seat. I do think this is the time for a very important kind of dose of changinism. Yes, I think later on, there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of rich people out there who we can tax at a point down the road to recover some of this money.
Thoughts, comments, questions?
Edit: I have a cookie for anyone who can define changinism for me.
|
|
At least he's being forthright and honest at the moment.
I take it he's probably not up for re-election this year. :)
See that's what gets me. My congressman (also a Democrat) is up for re-election this year and he is running on a platform of cutting spending and the deficit. Then I hear this and I wonder if he is really serious or if he is just saying what he thinks the voters want to hear.
|
See that's what gets me. My congressman (also a Democrat) is up for re-election this year and he is running on a platform of cutting spending and the deficit. Then I hear this and I wonder if he is really serious or if he is just saying what he thinks the voters want to hear.At least he's being forthright and honest at the moment.
I take it he's probably not up for re-election this year. :)
Which is why I think that past performance is a much better indication of future conduct than campaign promises. There are some few politicians who I trust to do what they will say, mostly conservatives who run as conservatives though there are a rare few like Frank who are solid liberals and who will run as liberals.
Most are like Clinton who ran on a promise of Tax Cuts all the way up till he was elected and then decided it wasn't feasible. (In fairness Clinton won his first election in large part because George H.W. Bush did much the same thing).
I grind my teeth every four years when I hear pundits talk about how candidates have to run to the center with their dialogue after they win their primaries. I want my candidates to run their general campaigns with the same promises they run with in their primary campaigns.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I think he said "Change-it-ism." I think.
I actually agree with him. In good times you run surpluses and in bad times you run deficits. Saving money doesn't shorten a recession. We need to spend now to smooth out the downturn and allow our economy to get back on good footing.
|
I wonder why the idea has never been suggested of a voluntary tax(call it a Patriot Tax) on the rich.
If there are so many people who are wealthy who feel it is their duty to pay more, why don't they just send in more money and return any attempted refund?
If we left the current tax rates where they are, and then let the outspoken rich folks who want their taxes raised to voluntarily send in extra money, wouldn't that be a win-win for everyone?
Well in Congressman Frank's defense, he did say we would wait until after we had spent our way out of our economic troubles to raise taxes.
But he's also one of the guys who fought against increased regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so we could make more housing available to more people.
What a munch!
|
|
I wonder why the idea has never been suggested of a voluntary tax(call it a Patriot Tax) on the rich.
If there are so many people who are wealthy who feel it is their duty to pay more, why don't they just send in more money and return any attempted refund?
If we left the current tax rates where they are, and then let the outspoken rich folks who want their taxes raised to voluntarily send in extra money, wouldn't that be a win-win for everyone?
What I love is the message it sends to people, hmm lets see, I could try to save money that's been taxed already so that it can get taxed again, where some obscure rule I wasn't aware of will cause me to owe money to the government that won't let me know about it till about 4 years later when they catch it, but will then assess fees, penalties, and interest on the ammount as if I had done it intentionally. Or, I could spend my money and never improve my station in life, they'll lower my taxes and start giving me the money I've earned from those people foolish enough to be succesful. Choices choices.
I wonder why the idea has never been suggested of a voluntary tax(call it a Patriot Tax) on the rich.
If there are so many people who are wealthy who feel it is their duty to pay more, why don't they just send in more money and return any attempted refund?
If we left the current tax rates where they are, and then let the outspoken rich folks who want their taxes raised to voluntarily send in extra money, wouldn't that be a win-win for everyone?
I've heard that the Obamas had given something like 1% of their income to charity. Helping others is always easier when using someone elses money.
I've heard that the Obamas had given something like 1% of their income to charity. Helping others is always easier when using someone elses money.
A statement that fails to recognize that the tax money also includes your own money, and a painfully hefty chunk of it too to hear tax opponents talk about it.
It's true that the Obamas have given as little as 1% of their income, but their donations have also gone up substantially as the book income went up too. So I'm not going to sweat it.
|
|
I wonder why the idea has never been suggested of a voluntary tax(call it a Patriot Tax) on the rich.
If there are so many people who are wealthy who feel it is their duty to pay more, why don't they just send in more money and return any attempted refund?
If we left the current tax rates where they are, and then let the outspoken rich folks who want their taxes raised to voluntarily send in extra money, wouldn't that be a win-win for everyone?
There was actually a proposal like this in the House a few monthes ago. The Democrats smacked it down before it ever made it out of committee.
Last night on CNBC's Closing Bell, Congressman Barney Frank said:I think at this point, there needs to be an immediate increase in spending, and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second, uh, a second seat. I do think this is the time for a very important kind of dose of changinism. Yes, I think later on, there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of rich people out there who we can tax at a point down the road to recover some of this money.Thoughts, comments, questions?
Edit: I have a cookie for anyone who can define changinism for me.
Phrasing sounds pretty weak but its not a bad concept. Problem is its a tad late. The government is supposed to save in the good times so that it can participate in the bail out during the bad times. This makes the highs of the business cycle a less high and the lows more bearable and hopefully shorter.
The big problem is that the American Government has not been saving during the good times - its been spending at a phenomenal rate.
|
|
I don't know. All I know is that if I went to my wife and said "the creditors are calling, the house is facing foreclosure, and we're in debt up to our eyeballs, lets head to Barnes and Noble so I can buy more Pathfinder stuff," if that would go over very well. I just think that we should expect the government to live by the same budgetary rules as the rest of us do.
I don't know. All I know is that if I went to my wife and said "the creditors are calling, the house is facing foreclosure, and we're in debt up to our eyeballs, lets head to Barnes and Noble so I can buy more Pathfinder stuff," if that would go over very well. I just think that we should expect the government to live by the same budgetary rules as the rest of us do.
The problem is that the governments budget comes from the tax payers so following a structure that presumes that the government must balance the books means either hiking taxes during downturns in the economy (thereby making the situation even worse and forcing another round of tax hikes) or cutting programs.
Not sure that a down turn in the economy is exactly the best time to either tell the marines that they are no longer getting paid or deciding that the government will no longer pay for social security or medicare. In the first case its not a particularly viable way to run a war (leaving aside whether or not America should be involved in one or not) once it was decided that America was going to fight a war on terror it does not make much sense to have the point at which you admit defeat be whenever the business cycle takes a turn for the worse - its better to use some other criteria then the business cycle for when America quites the war such as when victory is achieved or when the public no longer supports the war.
Dropping Social Security or Medicare in the middle of an economic downturn also makes little sense - not only are you tossing out on their butts those that used the system when they are least capable of replacing the lost program (because they are likely to find it most difficult to find a job) but you've fired all the people that run these programs - meaning that they now don't have jobs and are not paying taxes - which causes tax revenue to go down.
IMO what was really foolish about the way most of this was done was that the government massively increased spending while at the same time lowering taxes.
Once it was decided that they needed to fight a war they should have gone to the American people and told them that sacrifices were going to have to be made in the name of national security and everyone was going to see their taxes jacked up in order to pay for all of this.
In any case meeting the budget sounds good in theory but if its applied to governments, strictly, on a year to year basis it means that the government hurts the economy in times of economic weakness and helps the economy in times of economic strength. Not what is actually wanted if the pain of recessions are to be minimized.
|
|
There are other programs that could be cut without compromising national security or affesting the needed benefits that social security and medicare provide. Not to mention that there is a lot of overlap that could be streamlined. Looking at the House Budget Committee's web site, I found at least two different places were money is allocated for medicare.
In good times you run surpluses and in bad times you run deficits.
But, in Good Times (with the notable exeption of the 2nd Clinton Term), we also ran deficits.
The problem is that it is MUCH easier for Politicians to spend money (when it might be needed) then it is for them to excercise fiscal discipline (when it would be appropriate).
Most politicians have trouble seeing beyond the next election. So may feel a greater need to "buy votes" or "please campaign contributors" then to save the people's money.
There are other programs that could be cut without compromising national security or affesting the needed benefits that social security and medicare provide. Not to mention that there is a lot of overlap that could be streamlined. Looking at the House Budget Committee's web site, I found at least two different places were money is allocated for medicare.
The problem is that, along with interest payments, these really are were the money is. So its not like you can just decide that 'we spend to much money on researching Aids and Cancer - cut these programs' doing so will have only a very small impact in terms of balancing the books because they represent only a small outlay of the tax dollars.
Hence you either have to cut a lot of smaller programs (like half of them) or you have got to pick one of the big three programs and cut that if the goal is to balance the budget by cutting spending.
|
|
In good times you run surpluses and in bad times you run deficits.But, in Good Times (with the notable exeption of the 2nd Clinton Term), we also ran deficits.
Well since none of the money went to pay off the deficit technically we still ran a deficit. After all, you don't want to see the interest on a billion dollar loan.
Well since none of the money went to pay off the deficit technically we still ran a deficit. After all, you don't want to see the interest on a billion dollar loan.In good times you run surpluses and in bad times you run deficits.But, in Good Times (with the notable exeption of the 2nd Clinton Term), we also ran deficits.
I think you mean: "Well since none of the money went to pay off the debt technically we still ran a deficit. After all, you don't want to see the interest on a billion dollar loan."
But, if that is the case, I agree with your conclusion.
|
|
Well since none of the money went to pay off the deficit technically we still ran a deficit. After all, you don't want to see the interest on a billion dollar loan.In good times you run surpluses and in bad times you run deficits.But, in Good Times (with the notable exeption of the 2nd Clinton Term), we also ran deficits.
I think you mean: "Well since none of the money went to pay off the debt technically we still ran a deficit. After all, you don't want to see the interest on a billion dollar loan."
But, if that is the case, I agree with your conclusion.
Yup that's what I meant