Choosing Tax Cuts Over Deficit Reduction


A new Rasmussen [. . .] poll of likely voters asked: "Would you rather see a balanced budget with higher taxes or a budget deficit with tax cuts?" A 41% plurality would rather have budget deficit with tax cuts, with 36% calling for higher taxes and a balanced budget. The internals of the poll show Republicans favoring deficits and tax cuts.

"The partisan differences on the questions are notable," says the pollster's analysis. "While 50% of Republicans would rather see a budget deficit with tax cuts, a plurality (46%) of Democrats favor the opposite approach - a balanced budget with higher taxes. Voters not affiliated with either party are evenly divided on the question."

Of course in the real world, this is not actually the question presented. The real question is whether you want to reduce the deficit at all - because that requires tax INCREASES, especially on the rich. The deficit peacocks, both in the Congress (Evan Bayh) and in the Village (Andrea Greenspan, Pete Peterson and his minions) never discuss this reality. I wonder why.

Speaking for me only

< What Laws Should Pass By Majority Vote? | Report: Charlie Sheen to be Charged With Felony >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Like every poll..... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:39:31 AM EST
    The questions are designed to elicit a particular answer, based on the bias of the pollster, or the client who hired the pollster. Then the respondents put on their kaleidoscopic glasses, and interpret the questions in a way that allows them to vent their own prejudices.

    The American public has shown again, and again that, overwhelmingly, they're hard-wired to say, "NO!"

    Poll after poll has shown that, if put up to a vote today, they would vote, "no" to 8 of the 10 to our "BILL of Rights."

    Ask any 6 year old if he/she wants ice cream, or broccoli, with their spaggettio's.

    Case closed.

    Priorities (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:41:39 AM EST
    I think it's unfair to condemn progressives for the budget woes. Republicans didn't exactly handle the countries money any better.

    Conservative states aren't fairing too well either. Indiana is now billing you if you house is on fire!

    If Republicans or Democrats were really serious about the deficit, we would of had (and still have) a war tax. It's unrealistic to expect the continue to pour billions out every year in war and not expect to have to pay for it.

    It's an illusory question (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:07:48 AM EST
    Right now, people are seeing price go up, job prospects dwindling, and the economy as a whole get worse.  The "deficit" is something that is a far-off and nebulous concept to most people.  What they think when they are asked that question is:  "Would you like to see your taxes go up, blah, blah, blah, or would you rather have more money in your pocket right now?"

    Heck, that's an easy answer no matter what your political views.

    You don't give people enough credit (none / 0) (#3)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:15:55 AM EST
    People don't trust their politician (either party) to use the money wisely.

    They think the government will waste it and they are right.

    If the gov't collects more taxes and then spends more money what does that give the average person?

    Less money and a still increasing deficit.


    It gives the average person a road, a school, (none / 0) (#28)
    by DFLer on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 01:13:28 PM EST
    a bridge, a police force; as opposed to (in the sense of the taxpayers know better how to spend their own money argument,) a gallon of asphalt, a brick or two, one dozen bolts, 6 bullets. etc.

    are you saying ... (2.00 / 1) (#44)
    by nyrias on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 02:37:28 PM EST
    you can get rid of all the redistribution of wealth?

    I am sure most people are happy to pay for services (like police) but what about unemployment and medicare?

    I don't see a dime of benefit for paying for those.


    are you saying that we should be a third world (none / 0) (#51)
    by my opinion on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:31:07 PM EST

    You might (none / 0) (#52)
    by cawaltz on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:35:15 PM EST
    if you had the misfortune to become unemployed for an extended length of time or if you were to live an extended length of time and were unfortunate enough to contract diseases like diabetes or dementia.

    I'm saying that it is silly to say (none / 0) (#56)
    by DFLer on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:46:00 PM EST
    that the average taxpayer knows better how to spend their money than does the government. What if I want to build a road or a school? How is my $300.00 or even $3,000.00 or even $30,000.00 gonna do that?
    NOT. We work as a community, a commonwealth, not just as an aggregate of individuals.

    last post reply to nyrias, btw (none / 0) (#57)
    by DFLer on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:46:36 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 01:17:33 PM EST
    But that's not how people react to the question.  The question that people hear is "do you want to pay higher or lower taxes?"  Period.

    Well, who doesn't?


    It's a silly question (none / 0) (#2)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:13:56 AM EST
    Here's the reality...

    1. Would you prefer a deficit with tax cuts?

    2. Would you prefer a deficit with high taxes and higher spending?

    That's the reality.  Obama has promised all sorts of increased spending while not having the money to pay for it.

    No one beleives he will do as Clinton did and raise taxes while reducing spending and actually balancing the budget.

    The other reality is Obama won't have the luxary of the tech bubble to pay off the deficit.

    Today's reality means that taxes must be raised and spending must be cut, dramatically accross the board and in all programs.

    Since no one believes neither party has a plan to actually balance the budget they'd at least like to keep their money so they are better prepared to handle the calamity.

    I give you CA, NY and any liberal state you can mention as my example.   Higher taxes and huge financial problems.

    Not trusting progressives to actually use the increased revenue wisely people would rather keep their money.

    That is what BTD is missing and what these questions fail to address.

    Much of CA's problem (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:19:42 AM EST
    is that they CAN'T raise taxes.

    Nit pick if you want (none / 0) (#9)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    but that's no excuse for NJ, NY etc.. who are all in serious disarray financially.

    CA's tax rates are plenty high enough to support their residents.  They have simply made way to many commitments that they cannot keep.

    However you dice it it is not foolish to assume the government collects enough money to operate effectively and doesn't need anymore.

    Simple facts.  

    In 1970 our total government (state/federal) spent 0.3 Trillion or 29% of GDP

    In 1980 our total government spent 0.9 Trillion or 32% of GDP

    In 1990 our total government spent 2.1 Trillion or 37% of GDP

    In 2000 our total government spent 3.2 Trillion or 33% of GDP  

    In 2010 our total government will spend 6.5 Trillion or 44% of GDP

    My point being is our government is spending more and more as percentage of GDP and how much more do they need?  Are we receiving almost twice the services we received in 1970 for our investment in government?

    By the way in 2014 the projection is 8.1 Trillion and still 44% of GDP.  And that is a rosey scenario that depends on a big increase in GDP.

    They have plenty of taxes.  .



    You appear to be misinformed (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Spamlet on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 12:14:33 PM EST
    CA's tax rates are plenty high enough to support their residents. They have simply made way to[o] many commitments that they cannot keep.

    You can't talk credibly about California without accounting for Proposition 13 and the California initiative process in general.

    Indeed, Proposition 13--just as many back in 1978 predicted--has worked to ensure that California cannot "support its residents," and the initiative process itself has worked to ensure that nothing can be done about Proposition 13.


    Wrong, (none / 0) (#29)
    by bocajeff on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 01:14:41 PM EST
    California is the prototype of the notion that Government provides services without worrying about creating revenue to pay for them.

    Again (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Spamlet on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 01:28:19 PM EST
    California is the prototype of the notion that Government provides services without worrying about creating revenue to pay for them.

    To the extent that this is true, it's an outcome of the state's dysfunctional initiative process, which has also had serious ramifications for how the state legislature is required to go about its business. Proposition 13 is perhaps the most notorious product of that process, but it's not the only one.


    Californians keep voting local tax increases (none / 0) (#40)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 02:28:54 PM EST
    to pay for services they think are important so I don't think the problem is they want something for nothing. The problem is that the super majority required to pass a state budget puts the most power in the hands of a nutty, ideologically stunted minority and makes passing a sensible budge impossible.

    maybe you should look (none / 0) (#12)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:42:58 AM EST
    at my comment below.  since you appear to be seriously misinformed about the financial state of many of our 50 states.

    Your point was taken (none / 0) (#13)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:47:54 AM EST
    It's not a partisan issue and I should have refrained from taking the shot.

    However while a few liberal and conservative states are ok many liberal and conservative states are not and the theme is common.  To many promises, not enough taxes.


    Let's see (none / 0) (#22)
    by Manuel on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 12:51:20 PM EST
    In 1990 our total government spent 2.1 Trillion or 37% of GDP

    In 2000 our total government spent 3.2 Trillion or 33% of GDP

    Looks like the trend was reversed in the nineties.

    The trick is to grow GDP faster than government spending.  That speaks to jobs, jobs, jobs.

    The other trick is goldilocks tax rates.  Not too hih and not too low.  From the data, it looks like Reagan and Bush set it too low.  The Bush low rates helped to push us to the current state of affairs.  It makes total sense to reverse that.


    and thank GOD for that ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by nyrias on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 05:35:02 PM EST
    it has already an almost 10% income tax (for my bracket). I may LEAVE if it goes higher.

    and also, liberal states? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:25:22 AM EST
    give me a break.  look at all the red states on this list with huge budget gaps.  What states don't have projected 2011 budget gaps?

    New Hampshire.
    North Carolina.

    My god - all blue states!!!!!!


    Those states have small budgets (none / 0) (#11)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:41:52 AM EST
    compared to CA, NY and NJ but I shouldn't take partisan shots on what is a universal problem that involves both parties so I apologize.

    My point is the government collects plenty of money right now.

    They have a spending problem (both parties) and Americans are smart enough to say they shouldn't have to give the gov't more money since they can't be trusted to use it properly.


    so what if the budget is small or big (none / 0) (#16)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:53:09 AM EST
    a gap is a gap is a gap.  aren't you trying to make a point about government spending in general?

    And anyway your point is ideological.  And I don't know how government spending is possibly the problem when our budget was completely mutilated by Bush tax cuts.

    Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

    from Jan 31 2005:

    The new CBO data show that changes in law enacted since January 2001 increased the deficit by $539 billion in 2005. In the absence of such legislation, the nation would have a surplus this year. Tax cuts account for nearly half -- 48 percent -- of this $539 billion in increased costs. [1] Increases in program spending make up the other 52 percent and have been primarily concentrated in defense, homeland security, and international affairs.

    You appear to belong to the something for nothing (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:50:27 AM EST
    party -- with a lot of excuses for why such an unreasonable position is actually reasonable.

    As you admit, during the Clinton years we did get the deficit under control. When Bush got into office he followed the course preferred by his Republican constituents -- tax cuts and deficits.

    He left Obama with a collapsing economy, 2 wars --requiring additional spending just to keep the country stable.

    So, why blame "liberals" for our financial woes when time after time it proves to be Republicans who play into the voters most infantile fantasies -- and do what their most powerful supporters in the defense industry, energy and financial sector view as being in their own best interest (no matter it's a disaster for the country as a whole); massively increase spending (in ways that almost solely enrich those powerful interests) AND cut taxes (in ways that almost solely enrich those powerful interests.)

    The problem isn't the Democrats or "liberals." It's resentful and confused voters like you who time and time and time again fall for the propaganda promoted by those powerful interests (designed, among other things to stoke your mistrust and resentment of government) and time and again vote against your own interests in order to give them everything they want.

    I'm not some capitalist hating hippy telling you this -- I worked for 25 years doing advertising and PR for the people I'm talking about (defense contractors, financial services, energy, agriculture, etc). I know what they want, and I know that, with the help of thinking like yours, they always get it.

    The problem really isn't that they are, naturally enough, constantly looking out for their best interest. It is that people who think like you aren't looking out for your own.


    We have had problems with the deficit (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 01:21:50 PM EST
    after the Republicans cut taxes for the wealthy....

    Reagan presided over a huge ballooning of the deficit....and huge increases in spending...the 700 ship Navy etc., but since spending money on the military is always okay, Republicans had no problem with that.

    Then, the next big hike in the deficit was Bush II--again after a round of tax cuts, and spending a trillion dollars on Iraq.

    The Republicans created the problem of the deficits....And Cheney recognizing that fact infamously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

    Grover Norquist likes deficits because it prevents spending--part of his "drowning government in the bathtub" philosophy.


    Who here (none / 0) (#4)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:19:26 AM EST
    really thinks the gov't would devote any tax hike on deficit reduction?  I would be for a tax hike if all money went for deficit reduction, but with Pelosi in charge of the house, ain't going to happen.  The pols on both sides will find ways to spend money in order to stay elected.  

    No problem with increased taxation (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by cal1942 on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:49:30 AM EST
    and cutting spending during a serious recession is, at the very least, negligent.

    The right course is to spend whatever is necessary to get the nation back on its feet and moving forward.  An investment in the future.

    There's certainly ample room for significant tax increases at the federal level.  

    The Bush cuts were the height of irresponsibility; deficits in part caused by tax cuts.

    Not all deficits are created equal.


    Do you trust the federal gov't with (none / 0) (#35)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 01:49:43 PM EST
    your money?  I do not.  They will spend and not take care of the deficit.  Yes Bush was the worse thing since sliced white bread.  Congress is spending us in the ground at a worse rate.  Any tax increase will be used by congress to attempt to buy more votes it will not address the deficit.  

    For some reason (none / 0) (#39)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 02:26:55 PM EST
    the federal government did quite the opposite in the 90s.

    There is really nothing intrinsically wrong with Democrats in power.  Too bad Pres. Obama won't draw on that memory more though.


    I don't... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:26:22 AM EST
    If the state first cut discretionary spending to reduce the deficit, then I might be more inclined to believe these cats are serious about getting the books back in decent shape....absent that it smells like another money grab/govt. expansion.

    It's not surprising (none / 0) (#17)
    by cal1942 on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:55:37 AM EST
    that the poll revealed that Republicans were the most irresponsible.  Hardly need a poll for that.

    if we slash domestic spending (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 10:58:00 AM EST
    we CAN bomb Iran!!!



    Not just Iran (none / 0) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 12:03:50 PM EST
    you progressives are too limited. The whole freakin' world is a threat. We must be able to blow it up seven times over at least.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#21)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 12:25:46 PM EST
    The real question is whether you want to reduce the deficit at all - because that requires tax INCREASES...

    Tax revenue increases are required to reduce the deficit barring spending cuts.  However, the Reagan tax rate cuts resulted in substantial tax revenue increases.  

    In fact every year of the Reagan administration saw increased tax revenue.  

    Increasing tax rates to in a business downturn to ease the deficit was tried by Herbert Hoover when he increased the marginal tax rate from 25% to 65%.  It did not work out so well.

    Surely "Hope and Change" is not about repeating badly failed policies from the past.

    Most of that "substantial" revenue (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 01:07:30 PM EST
    growth cited by conservatives to support Reagan's tax cuts is actually accounted for by population growth and inflation. When you take population growth and inflation into account, the revenue growth from 1980-88 (19%) was less than revenue growth from the "stagflation" years of 1972-80 (24%). It was also less than half the revenue growth experienced during the Clinton years, 1992-2000 (41%).

    Thank you (none / 0) (#41)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 02:30:01 PM EST

    When you take population growth and inflation into account, the revenue growth from 1980-88 (19%)...

    A tax revenue increase of 19% is in no way a tax cut.  

    If you want to compare that to other administrations, don't forget to compare the economies rather than just inflation and population growth.  Reagan came into office just facing a recession almost as bad as the current one.


    And median wages have remained flat (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 02:38:10 PM EST
    since 1980 except for the last couple of years under Bill.

    And the deficit was what (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 12:57:03 PM EST
    when Reagan left office?

    Dont tell me, something that was all Jimmy Carter's fault.


    The Reagan deficit (none / 0) (#38)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 02:21:58 PM EST
    was not caused by the substantial tax revenue increases during his administration.

    which did not match outlays (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 02:34:44 PM EST
    The deficit under Carter was puny....It increased under Reagan.....It disappeared under Bill--after he raised taxes in 1993 via a tie vote in the Senate broken by Gore.....

    Deficit goes up again under Bush....

    Seeing a pattern here?


    Key point missing from your analysis is (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by coast on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 07:09:40 PM EST
    that Bill cut spending while raising taxes which seems to be a point many here neglect to mention when referencing Clinton's success with the deficit.  You have to do both to achieve a surplus as he did.  Reagan and Bush both expanded goverment while cutting taxes. The current administration's proposal to increase taxes and spending will be as disastrous as Reagan and Bush.

    Bill cut spending? (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 07:22:40 PM EST
    Link please.....

    As I recall, he outfoxed Gingrich over spending....Gingrich shutting down the government because Billl would not agree to cuts......Do you have any contrary evidence?

    Bill did raise taxes....


    As a percentage of GDP (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by coast on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 07:43:49 PM EST
    Bill cut spending from 21.4 % in 1993 to 18.5% in 2001.

    Because the GDP went up (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 12:41:14 PM EST
    not because spending went down....Good Grief....

    Reagan Tax Cut Worship (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 01:00:02 PM EST
    More like (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 01:38:31 PM EST
    the clothes had no Gipper.

    the reason they dont discuss (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 01:04:56 PM EST
    reality is that they have guys like this out changing history and reality for them.
    I find this stunning:

    Mr Tea Bagger: "I think the deficit was 160 billion or some number like that when Bush left office"

    Amnesia and ADD (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 01:44:58 PM EST
    two of the right wing's best friends.

    Never mind what actually happened, all that needs to happen is for Beck, Limbaugh et al to keep relentlessly slinging the b.s with absolute CONVICTION and it turns into a tent revival - test of faith for these folks.


    Yes Bush was bad, bad, bad. It was like (none / 0) (#36)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 01:53:18 PM EST
    a frog being boiled slowly.  We frogs did not notice.  No one noticed.  Pelosi gets free reign and she pours the boiling water on us frogs we we notice.  Eventually the deficit will be Obama's and Pelosi's  Best to stick ones head in the ground and shout Bush!

    A lot of the frogs (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 02:09:36 PM EST
    started noticing in the eighties.

    Bush was just another turn-of-the-screw of a trend and philosophy that was already a basic, established -- and in the longterm, unworkable -- platform that was sold to people the way T and A is used to sell beer.


    I'd say a slight majority knew exactly what (none / 0) (#42)
    by esmense on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 02:31:14 PM EST
    Bush planned to do back in 2000.

    Unfortunately, the Supreme Court supported those plans.


    some frogs noticed. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 02:52:14 PM EST
    some even wrote about it:

    The Mission
    by William Rivers Pitt
    2003 OCTOBER 10


    An analysis of the facts, and the record, reveals Clinton to have been one of the most effective progressive Presidents in American history. By 1998 he had managed to create an economic system that filled the Federal treasury with unprecedented amounts of available money, and he had also managed to pass a variety of progressive social programs that benefited vast numbers of middle-class Americans. When Clinton stood up in 1998, with a massive budget surplus waiting in the wings, and cried, "Save Social Security first!" he was roaring a battle cry across the trenches that had been there since 1932. Such a surplus would fund social programs all across the country. Such a surplus would, at long last, settle the argument: An activist Federal government can be a force for good within the American populace, and once more, can be paid for with extra left over. The New Deal/Great Society wars seemed to be coming to an end.

    This was why he had to be destroyed.

    The rest is coda. The impeachment, funded by right-wing activists and business interests, stormed along by a mainstream media whose Reagan-era deregulated status led to a complete breakdown in journalistic ethics, and all buttressed by years of unsubstantiated scandals pushed along by congressional zealots with subpoena power, left the American population exhausted enough to vote against their own best interests in 2000.

    The fallout from this has been extreme. Trickle-down economics have returned to America, with the inevitable economic downturn and unemployment riding sidecar. The Federal Treasury, once full to bursting, has been looted completely. This, in the end, was the mission. That money could not be allowed to stay in the Treasury, because the American people would have expected it to be used to fund the programs they depend on. The Bush administration moved every penny of that money into the wealthiest portions of the private sector, using September 11 and terrorism and fear and war as an excuse to storm the trenches their forefathers had been shooting into for over 70 years. It was a smash-and-grab robbery writ large.

    notice how he (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    adroitly keeps trying to change history in the face of facts.

    It's the Republican way (none / 0) (#47)
    by cawaltz on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 02:54:37 PM EST
    If the facts don't actually support your belief system holler "socialism."

    he is better than that (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:02:30 PM EST
    first is Bush left a small deficit, then its well those were bills he never signed, (meaning of course Obama signed them).
    when all else fails toss him under the bus.

    Such wanking. (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:06:27 PM EST
    Might as well spend our time wanking over who's going to win the 2015 Super Bowl or what tomorrow's lottery numbers are going to be.

    Raising taxes/reducing taxes/revenues/spending it's all just flat-out guesswork and political biases mixed with a large dose of blind faith in unprovable beliefs.

    iow, superstition.

    The Eagles are winning in 2015. n/t (none / 0) (#61)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:57:32 PM EST
    Only a reprobate would think that. (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:24:33 PM EST
    Speaking for me only.



    Democrats are delusional (none / 0) (#50)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:27:46 PM EST
    We can't tax our way out of this.

    During the Reagan years there where democrats running congress.

    During 6 of the 8 Clinton years there where Republicans running congress.

    During Bush I democrats controlled congress.

    During the last two years of Bush democrats where running congress.

    See a pattern?  This is a bipartisan problem.

    Democrats want to ignore one simple fact.  No matter who is in charge our government (state/local) continues to spend more money then they take in.   Now we have reached a point where the economy won't produce the revenues to match the promises, handouts and services our politicians have promised.

    Democrats solution?  Collect more taxes.  Good start.  Should be followed up with cuts in spending.

    My point is  every dollar of revenue from new taxes should be used to pay down the deficit and not a single penny goes to a new jet, handout or foodstamp.

    If the government can't make that promise (Obama is a long way from doing so) then they can't have anymore of my money.

    Why am I wrong?

    I'm game (none / 0) (#53)
    by cawaltz on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:39:15 PM EST
    let's start with the Pentagon's toybox and get the heck out of Iraq and Afghanistan. We can save a bundle right there.

    Why stop there? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:45:05 PM EST
    Raise social security age to 70 and stop sending checks to retired rich guys who don't need them.

    Bring the troops home from Germany, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Okinawa, etc...

    Stop all farm subsidies.

    there is so much that the government could cut but it would mean pissing off lobbyists and special interests.


    Why should we raise it to 70? (none / 0) (#59)
    by cawaltz on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:53:44 PM EST
    As it stands there are alot of people who won't get a darn thing out of all the money they've contributed. I'd rather the top 5% pony up more. They can stand to cash in some of the over 50% of the country's wealth that they own.

    I'm all about stopping farm subsidies. You might want to talk that over with your GOP cohorts since they are the ones who stopped Bush from getting his way there. Evidently Tyson was none to happy with stopping the gravy train.


    Social Security (none / 0) (#68)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:44:56 PM EST
    I just sat down and added up the years my immediate family put into the SS fund. The total was 132 years. The only one that saw a dime from all those years was my mother. She collected for 7 years. Hopefully I'll last long enough to get some of mine and even a bit of theirs!

    Why stop at that? (none / 0) (#65)
    by my opinion on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:03:33 PM EST
    Do you want government or do you think it's only purpose is to protect the rich and powerful?

    Corporate Welfare (none / 0) (#69)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:46:54 PM EST
    Farm subsidies have become another form of corporate welfare. Very few true "small farmers" get a dime.

    I am for that if all the money (none / 0) (#58)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:52:10 PM EST
    saved would go to the deficit, but you and I know it would not.  

    Excuses, excuses (none / 0) (#62)
    by cawaltz on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:59:20 PM EST
    Social spending has been cut, it's only fair that DHS and the Pentagon do their patriotic duty. They have more than enough bombs to last them as it stands. There is absolutely no reason that every time a command changes hands a completely servicable office needs to be redecorated or there shouldn't be a push to have the DoD come in under budget rather than have them all make a push in Sept to spend, spend, spend because they'll get less next year if they don't.

    Those will say Clinton did it (none / 0) (#54)
    by Slado on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:39:51 PM EST
    and they are right, yes he did.  

    And  for 4 to 6 years it worked great until the recession of 2000 and 2001 which I guess we could blame on Bush if we where insane.

    Given a recession (much like Obama but not as bad) Bush then cut taxes, and as they always do revenues INCREASED!!!!! but he then acted like a moron and spent tons of money we didn't have on a war that wasn't funded, prescription drugs and a whole host of silly increases in federal spending that used up the extra revenue and what do you know, his bubble burst (housing) and we where again left with more government and no way to pay for it.

    One can pretend that Bill Clinton masterfully managed the budget but it's simply false.  Government grew under Clinton and the internet bubble funded the treasury enough to create the illusion of fiscal responsibility.  All that said Clinton did balance the budget with the revenues he had. However he did not anticipate the loss of those revenues which no politician ever seems able to do.

    Unfortunately when that bubble burst we lost all those sources of revenue, the economy went in the tank and we where left with the ever expanded government and GDP wasn't growing at an exponential level anymore because people finally figured out an internet site that delivered food to your house wasn't worth the money anymore.


    What do you mean (none / 0) (#63)
    by cawaltz on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:02:41 PM EST
    "all those people finally figured out that an internet site that delivered food to your house wasn't worth the money anymore?"

    I thought that taxpayers were paragons who didn't spend money on needless things like the awful, dreadful, horrible government?(tongue firmly in cheek)


    excuse me (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:03:04 PM EST
    but the billions of dollars of surplus Clinton left Bush is not "illusion of fiscal responsibility"

    which happened by the way (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 04:05:49 PM EST
    because several democrats did the right thing and voted for his budget knowing they would lose their election for doing it.

    those were the days.

    see Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky
    from wiki:

    However, she was not re-elected. Losing in 1994 to her 1992 opponent, she was one of 34 Democratic incumbents who were defeated in the Republican Revolution. Her defeat was blamed on her vote for President Bill Clinton's controversial 1993 budget, for which she was the deciding vote. After the vote, Rep. Robert Walker (R-Pennsylvania) reportedly mocked her, jumping up and down and said "Goodbye, Marjorie" alluding to the fact that her deciding vote would cost her the seat.

    Revenues usually increase (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 07:25:03 PM EST
    That is the norm with our economy.....

    You are wrong because you want our (none / 0) (#60)
    by my opinion on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 03:56:53 PM EST
    great nation to become a third world country.

    they should ask (none / 0) (#75)
    by pluege on Thu Feb 04, 2010 at 09:02:51 PM EST
    if people would like to have both tax cuts and a balanced Federal budget, as well as jobs and health care by cutting the bloated obscene "defense" budget in half.