Goodtimepolitics

Comments

1. The Center Square says:

   April 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM

   This is why I have been saying that the tea party crowd needs to end the Obama- and Democrat-bashing. Unless they can get the center-left wing (i.e., me and a hundred million Americans like me) on board, it all comes to naught. 51% won’t accomplish anything. And that’s before all the people who are in this just for the tax cuts realize that cannot happen and give up on the movement.

   Goodtimepolitics: We have to stay on to the source of the Big spending and taxing government and right now its Obama and the Democrats!

   The outrage of millions of taxpayers following the $700 billion bank bailout and the $787 billion stimulus bill did not stop Congress from passing and President Obama from signing a bloated $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations Act in March. With the subsequent approval of the President’s budget, the national debt will triple over the next 10 years. That leaves plenty of opportunities for pork to remain pervasive in the nation’s capital.

   The fiscal year 2009 appropriations process was unique as three of the appropriations bills (Defense, Homeland Security and Military Construction) were passed and signed on September 30, 2008 under a different Congress and President. But the change in control in the White House did not change the culture of corruption that surrounds pork-barrel spending.

   The latest installment of Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) 19-year exposé of pork-barrel spending includes $3,800,000 for the Old Tiger Stadium Conservancy; $1,900,000 for the Pleasure Beach water taxi service project; and $1,791,000 for swine odor and manure management research.

   In fiscal year 2009, Congress stuffed 10,160 projects into the 12 appropriations bills worth $19.6 billion. The projects represent a 12.5 percent decrease from the 11,610 projects in fiscal year 2008. The $19.6 billion is a 14 percent increase over the fiscal year 2008 total of $17.2 billion, belying claims of reduced spending. Total pork identified by CAGW since 1991 adds up to $290 billion. Much more keep reading…
2. lukemcgook says:

   April 20, 2009 at 7:02 PM

   51% won’t accomplish anything.

   That’s funny. Most people on the center-left, or who claim to be on the center-left, seem to think that 51% is all that matters, and that Barky’s getting almost 53% of the vote has to end all politicking by the other 47%. Also funny that dissent was the very essence of responsible citizenship until a few months ago, at which time it suddenly became futile “bashing.”

   Btw, your reference to tax cuts suggests that you’re much farther over to the left, in talking-point terms, than you’re “concerned centrist” persona suggests. The main motive behind the tea parties was not to preserve the present tax regime, admittedly too burdensome, but to stop the insane spending that will require either huge tax increases (not simply letting the Bush cuts expire) or national bankruptcy. As Anderson Cooper might say: “Teabaggers think ahead.”
3. lukemcgook says:

   April 20, 2009 at 8:46 PM

   Ghost of Ernie Ford, singin’ about debt.
4. The Center Square says:

   April 20, 2009 at 10:58 PM

   @ lukemcgook: Suppose there had been NO bailouts. Suppose there was NO increase in federal spending as an economic stimulus. What would we have then? We would have annual deficits of $500 billion or more, on top of the $12 trillion of federal debt already accumulated.

   Since the Age of Tax Cutting began in the 1980s, the federal government has spent $11 trillion more than it has taxed. Sorry, but if you can’t your bills in the first place, it makes no sense to ask to have your salary reduced.

   I wrote a blog piece on this: http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/2009/04/19/the-cold-hard-reality-of-federal-spending-and-what-it-means-to-fix-it/

   I totally get cutting spending. I totally do not get tax cuts.

   Goodtimepolitics: I see that your Illnois president Obama disagrees with you The Center Square that the Tea party protesters doesn’t have an effect! Matter of fact it has him trying to cut his budget, the only thing is he thinks we are stupid enough to go along with his little tiny cut. And for tax cuts that you don’t understand, if Obama raises taxes on companies then the companies will pass that cost on down to the American people middle class and poor alike in the way of higher prices on food and other products. As you can see that Calif has raised taxes even when getting the government money. When he passes the carbon tax it will hurt all Americans except the rich who will have loop holes! If Obama does not stop his spending spree, he will be a one term president as Jimmy Carter was!

   Obama admitted that $100 million represents a minuscule fraction of his $3.6 trillion budget proposal, and will do little to erase the more than $1.2 trillion deficit that has become the rallying cry of fiscal conservatives.

   The president acknowledged the public dissatisfaction with government spending that culminated in hundreds of anti-spending and anti-tax “tea party” protests nationwide last week.
   “We also have a deficit, a confidence gap when it comes to the American people, and we’ve got to earn their trust,” Obama said. “They’ve got to feel confidence that their dollars are being spent wisely.” Read More
5. lukemcgook says:

   April 21, 2009 at 12:59 AM

   Curious line of argument by Square. Seems to be that, because a half-trillion dollar deficit is bad, a two trillion dollar deficit is good. If, by this line of approach, you’re hoping to flush out a conservative who approves of the Bush deficits, give it up. We’ve had worse presidents than ol’ Dubya, lots of them, but he was a total pussy on spending. At least he took a shot at entitlement reform.

   Where would be without Porkulus? About $800 billion better off than we are at the moment. Even the modelers at the CBO, wholly owned by Congressional Dems, have to confess that Porkulus will end by reducing national income.

   Let me guess. You work for the government.
6. lukemcgook says:

   April 21, 2009 at 1:01 AM

   Oh, and, if you can’t pay your bills, a good first step is to curtail your spending.
7. The Center Square says:

   April 21, 2009 at 7:58 AM

   Actually, I am a business owner, and a fairly sizable business at that.

   But I think we agree. Your words: “If you can’t pay your bills, a good first step is to curtail your spending.” My words: “I totally get cutting spending.”

   And as you say, the larger the deficit, the worse it is. Agreed. That is why I made MY point: Tax cuts are irresponsible. increase the deficit. Tax cuts have resulted in $12 trillion in federal debt since the 1980s. I do not think there is any objective rebuttal to that; it is a simple fact.
8. The Center Square says:

   April 21, 2009 at 8:00 AM

   Sorry, I clicked before I was done. Final point: If spending is bad because it increases the deficit and adds to federal debt, then surely tax cuts that increase the deficit and add to federal debt are bad, too. What’s the difference? Ya know?

   Goodtimepolitics: Maybe I can answer that question for you The Center Square, You said that you’re a large bussiness owner and that you want to be taxed more! Thats beyond me!

   The Economic Effects of Capital Gains Taxation

   Economist Allen Sinai maintains that a capital gains tax reduction would lower the cost of capital, boost investment, and stimulate economic growth. He estimates that a capital gains tax reduction could:

   increase real gross domestic product (GDP) by an average of $51 billion annually;

   create 500,000 new jobs by the year 2000; and

   increase real business spending by an average of nearly $18 billion annually.

   The effects of increased investment and economic growth would reverberate throughout the entire economy in the form of higher wages and rising living standards. In addition, the United States taxes capital gains more harshly than its major international competitors. Reducing the capital gains tax rate could increase U.S. global competitiveness.

   Tax Revenue. The historical evidence suggest that capital gains tax reductions tend to increase tax revenue. When capital gains tax rates were lowered in 1978 and again in 1981, revenue climbed steadily. Conversely, when the tax rate was increased in 1987, revenue began declining despite forecasters predictions it would increase. For instance, capital gains tax revenue in 1985 equaled $36.4 billion after adjusting for inflation, yet $36.2 billion was collected in 1994 under a higher tax rate. In other words, tax revenue in 1994 was slightly less than it was in 1985 even though the economy was larger, the tax rate was higher, and the stock market was stronger in 1994. Read more
9. lukemcgook says:

   April 21, 2009 at 6:04 PM

   Alrightee then. Center Square is telling us that tax cuts are responsible for deficits. This is the argument by arithmetic, namely: “When (2-4) = -2, it’s 2′s fault.” Unfortunately, people who employ this argument never tell us why it’s not 4′s fault instead.

   Now, deficits are just spending that hasn’t been paid for yet, and this spending will, sooner or later, be covered (barring the government’s formal repudiation of its debts, not an impossibility) by enacting further levies on us and our children, or by monetizing the debt, that is, printing so much money that outstanding government debt becomes less and less valuable. Monetizing the debt entails inflation, effectively a tax on savings. There will be no avoiding payment for our huge anticipated deficits. We pay now for spending sprees, or we pay later. Square needn’t fret about past tax cuts and can safely stop admonishing us for our credit-happy ways. The deficits will be covered, by force.

   So where’s the Tea Party beef, as it were? It’s not the deficits, stupid, it’s the spending. A larger share of income, national income, our income is handed over, must be handed over, to government and its incompetent, unaccountable, and self-serving creatures. A larger fraction of our work day is devoted to paying for things we neither want nor need. Our savings are reduced, then further devalued by inflation. Enterprise, innovation, and improvement are penalized. We are impoverished, at least those of us outside the parasite classes.

   While there are more and less costly and unjust ways of collecting a given tax revenue, the very first argument Square and his “fiscally repsonsible” ilk have to win is over spending. Show us why Porkulus is essential to economic health. Explain why the Omnibus Earmark act is good for us. Defend TARP and the impending IMF bailout of Britain. Demonstrate why the massive transfer payments that comprise most of the feds’ 25% cut of our earnings must be supported. Hell, if Square can justify the size of City of Chicago’s budget, my hat is off to him. No more fussing about the (2-4), please, tell us why it has to be 4, and not, say, 1.

   Government spending at present levels isn’t bad because it increases the deficit. It’s bad because it’s bad.
10. goodtimepolitics says:

    April 22, 2009 at 1:06 AM

    George W Bush spent 1 trillion dollars in the entire 2 terms he was in office and he was ridiculed for ‘over spending’
    This president spent over 2 trillion in less than 2 months and is planning to spend trillions more. People like “The Center Square” seem to love Obama’s spending and I just hope they are as over joy to pay more taxes that the tax dodgers in the White House didn’t want to pay until they got caught! I’m sure glad that I can say I didn’t vote for Obama and he’s not my president, he is their president!