From a political standpoint, maybe that would have been a better move for the Democrats. But as far as the state of the country is concerned ... tomato, tomahto. They're both New Left and pals with Cloward & Piven and the Alinsky/ACORN clan for one thing. Which means they're really not interested in getting the United States on firm financial ground. They want it off.
Somewhere in the middle of his article, Bill comes up with the following:
Consider the debacle with the debt ceiling. The Democrats wanted to raise taxes on people making more than $250,000. The Republicans wanted to cut spending. Obama said he'd go along with spending cuts if the Republicans would agree to some tax hikes. He was negotiating from a position of strength. The Republicans controlled only the House. The Democrats had the White House, the Senate and, more importantly, the people. Poll after poll showed that a majority of Americans favored raising taxes on the wealthy.Oh, maybe he could have with people who weren't paying attention. But a bunch of us out here aren't looking for who can win an argument like this.
But it was Obama who backed down.
This was a fight he could have won. Consider hedge fund managers. On their earnings, they pay at the capital gains rate of 15 percent. According to a story last week in the Toronto Star, the top 25 hedge fund managers took home an average of $880 million last year. According to that same story, closing the loophole for hedge fund managers would save the Treasury $20 billion over 10 years.
Obama didn't think he could win that argument?
The problem is, though the numbers you just came up with sound impressive to the average joe, you're talking about 2 billion a year ... you're talking about 17 .... ONE HUNDREDTHS (less than two tenths) ... of a percent of our annual budget deficit.
Making the above 99.83% a strawman argument.
WE DO NOT HAVE A TAX REVENUE PROBLEM.
WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM.
WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM.
Stickin' it to the man ain't gonna cut it.
Take it away, Mr Whittle.
2 comments:
We don't have a spending problem. We have a priorities problem. You want to spend the money to ingratiate someone or something to the rich.
We need to spend the money to stimulate the economy, to make more people rich.
Buffet isn't so dumb as you make him out to be. He's right -- our tax system is unjust when he, and other rich people, pay much lower tax rates than secretaries, teachers, cops and firemen. Of course, you don't depend on secretaries, teachers, cops or firemen, do you?
We don't have a spending problem. We have a priorities problem.
Denial. The refuge of the addict.
When the answer to any problem is to collect and spend yet more of other peoples' money, priorities can be expected to fly out the window. Having a priorities problem does not preclude having a spending problem.
He's right -- our tax system is unjust when he, and other rich people, pay much lower tax rates than secretaries, teachers, cops and firemen.
Well it would be unjust if it were true, but it's a bit of a red herring because it's simply not. Please point us to a source that shows it is if you disagree. (Hint: in this case, a government website would be appropriate, especially if it were the website of an agency whose job it is to collect said taxes).
You want to spend the money to ingratiate someone or something to the rich.
I think nothing of the sort, but I see the source of your illusion. You equate taking less money from people with actually giving them money. Of course, underlying this is the assumption that their money is yours to take, and to take any less from them than what you have arbitrarily defined as "fair" is giving them money out of the goodness of your heart.
There are, no doubt, some cases of questionable justification for such breaks to businesses, but the basic idea is sound, and history bears it out. Comanies are more likely to expand, or try to expand -- either way by hiring more people -- if they have more capital on hand to mitigate the risk. It's not the government's place to employ people, and funnelling money - which can only come from the private sector - into it to "create" jobs is an an invitation to waste, fraud, and power abuse - in addition to unjustly depriving people of their property and adding drag to the economy, lowering real tax revenues despite the optimistic expectation from raising rates. My positions are not based on any "love" for "the rich", but on the principles of property rights and a robust but limted government to enforce and referee the exchanges.
But here I am trying to reason with someone who believes the narrative that the rich pay lower tax rates than the lower-middle class in complete contravention of the widely available facts -- and that all wealth belongs to society and not to the individuals who created or bequeathed it. That the government graciously allows us to keep some of it for ourselves out of its generosity.
I find this in general to be an exercise in futility with ideologues such as yourself. Which is why after one ill-advised trip to your blog, I ceased bothering.
The only reason I do it here is for others to read, as I feel certain that in your case I might as well be talking to the Berlin Wall.
Post a Comment