Cutting Through The Crap

Friday, June 24, 2011

Cantor Can't



And speaking of the economy, to no one's surprise Eric Cantor has bolted from the "bipartisan" "negotiations" on the "budget." Damn Democrats want to raise a little revenue to pay for our basic needs. Republicans say no deal to that: they simply don't care about anything but tax cuts for the wealthy. I don't see how anyone can argue with that statement. I wonder how he'd explain what was wrong with tax rates before Bush got hold of our thriving economy.

I've said it before: it's obvious that tax rates that are too high would destroy the economy. Taking the extreme case of 100%, we'd have full agreement across the board. Likewise rates of 0% (although I'm certain there are teabaggers who'd be perfectly happy to watch the country crumble around them as long as they had theirs...

Anyhow, we can all agree it's a matter of finding a zone in which there's enough revenue to do what's needed, and enough incentive for people to work and produce stuff. It's obvious to everyone except the ideologically blind that we're not in the zone. Keeping taxes where they are -- forget about the further cuts teabaggRs want -- it's apparent that the sort of cuts to achieve balance will rob us of our future, as infrastructure crumbles, education continues its decline, research goes unfunded, and the environment is left to putrefy. It's happening already, and the Rs are barely into their plot plan.

So it's a choice. If these guys, the teabaggRs, have their way, we'll see the end of everything we need as a country, other than fur-lined coffers for the very few. I've not seen any credible breakdown of how we pay for the aforementioned basics if Rs hold sway; in fact, it's clear they don't want to pay for those things. Or, their god forbid, such fluff as medicaid, WIC programs, or any other ways to help their fellow citizens.

Of course, we could elect people who'd like to see the government function, who value the country enough to pay for its needs. It's not as if anyone is talking about going back to the tax rates we had under Ronald Reagan, after all. Patriotism isn't about playing dress-up. It's about doing the hard stuff that democracy demands. Teabaggers, and the people they've elected, are the furthest thing from patriots that anyone could imagine. It's selfishness and nothing more. (Okay, misinformed stupidity, too. I'll give you that.)

Against that statement there's simply no argument to be made.

[I've read speculation that the walkout is a defacto recognition that tax hikes are, in fact, inevitably necessary, and that Cantor (and Kyl) simply don't have the balls to be the ones to agree. They're kicking it up to Boehner and McConnell. Could be, I suppose. If it's true, and it happens, I'll take back some of what I said. About teabaggRs; but not about teabaggers.]

[On the other hand, it looks like it ain't gonna happen. My bad. Boehner might rise to the occasion? What was I thinking?]

We're past the point of no return. Like the man said, the Republican party is now made up of and supported by idiots. We're screwed. Totally and completely screwed. If the unlikeliest of outcomes transpired in 2012, and people woke up, made a choice for the future of the country, and Ds regained control of both houses -- even then, it might well be too late.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html

Raising taxes on the "wealthy" (only >250k as Obama promised) wont even come close to balancing the budget.

You act as if going back to Clinton era tax rates will solve everything. Not only does it do little to balance the budget, but it also siphons dollars earned by the most productive members of society into the sieve of government sponsored inefficiency (with the occasional useful govt program overshadowed by 10x as many wasteful ones).

How about your boy Obama starts by implementing antitrust laws to break up the companies that are too big to fail? How about he implements bailouts for small mom n pop business owners? How about he requires those on long term unemployment to work part time while "searching" for a new job? Why doesnt he remove the requirwment that people buy supwr expensive comprehensive health insurance in lieu of catastrophic coverage? How about he allows health savings accounts so people can pay cash for routine healthcarw costs? How about Congress reforms tax code so the wealthy cant hide their assets? How about they reform Medicare/Social Security & give Americans the freedom to opt out when they realize how poor the ROI will be on these programs if they must remain solvent? How about they allow health insurance to be sold across state lines?

Whining about 39 vs 35% tax rates is like pissing in the wind. There are more serious issues to be dealt with.

If you beloeve taxes are too low, be a leader; recruit all of your best liberal friends to contribute as much as you beloeve the tax rates should be to your local govt. Then invite R Maddow to do an interview on how your town became a utopia b/c the "rich" gave 4% more/year.

Regards,
PT

Sid Schwab said...

Wow, PT: you've become quite the RWS™ since I pointed out your error about the Reich video. It's okay. Really. You're not alone.

Chill, baby. Then we can talk. Meanwhile, I never said the Clinton tax rates would solve every problem. But your argument certainly confirms the stupidity of the intransigence of the teabaggRs. Compromise is simply off the table for them.

Cory said...

Jeez PT... Your sarcasm reeks! If you dropped it down a notch, might be worth the read.

Anonymous said...

OK, I know its like crying over spilled Beer, I mean after the Cows skee-dadled(Southern for "Ran at a high rate of speed) out of the Barn butttt................
and have you SEEN Michelle Obama's Butt lately? The President(Peace be upon Him) could light matches off that A** if he was still smoking...
Where was I? Oh yeah, America, where a rich bas**** I mean hard working stiff like me isn't payin any FICA, cause I've already made over $106,800, while my sweet innocent daughter's getting slapped with the whole %7.65 at her minimal wage Pubic pool(that's not a typo)lifeguard job...
Oh yeah, back in December, all the President(Peace be upon Him) had to do was let the Bush Tax Cuts expire..
Actually, he didn't have to "Do" anything, they would have expired at midnight, December 31st 2010, just like my "Hustler" subscription..
And thats one thang the Presidents(PBUH)pretty good at, doin nothing.
Thats right, all he had to do was play Golf all December, and January 1st 2011, the Art History Majors lucky enough to be grinding beans at Starbucks would be payin %15 instead of that rediculously low %10..
But he didn't do nothing, cause he's a Smart Negroe, articulate, and clean, and doesn't speak in a Negroe dialect like Harry Reed, with a Hah-vuhd Degree, even if he won't release his Grades, which were probably even worse than mine...

Frank "Tax em Back to the Stoned Age" Drackman

Sid Schwab said...

In response to your Reich comment, I also pointed out that readers of this blog would know certain things, PT. In the case of the budget, that would include having read here several times that a realistic approach to controlling deficits would include cuts in defense, entitlements, and would also include increasing revenue.

The entitlement cuts would be in the order of indexing benefits to income, and would include the sorts of attention to medicare costs that, so far, when proposed by Obama, has been characterized by Rs as death panels.

You talk of pissing in the wind: Rs talk of cutting Planned Parenthood and NPR. And make pre-discredited claims of the results of further tax cuts. Simply not credible, except as a way to enrich their backers.

There's no future in it for the country, only short-term cash in the pocket for the already very well-off. Rather than sarcasm about Rachel Maddow, how about addressing the primary premise: Rs have no interest in compromise, which is fundamental to democracy; and their claims about tax reductions are unsupportable, period.

Anonymous said...

Chill, baby? That sounds like the advice of a perpetual "foamer at the mouther" (that would be you) under the influence of multiple Appletinis. Careful driving home, that VW Beetle is a cop magnet and you wouldnt do well in jail. Of course your cell mates would probably like Obama as much as you and you could get one of those sweet "tear drop" tattoos on your face there.

Re: Reich
The dude, in a moment of candor,
expressed his hideous views on disregarding personal choice in healthcare and Obama
soon after invited him to be an economic
advisor. Thats all you need to know. Ever read Rahm Emmanuels brothers defense of witholding care from the elderly? Obama
really gets advice from some creepy ppl.

I calculated the cost difference, over 30 years, of catastrophic vs comprehensive health insurance (which Obamacare is mandating that everybody purchase). The cost difference is around 300k+, which is enough to crush existing small businesses and discourage the creation of new ones. Of course, govt can subsidize health insur but the comps will just raise prices much like tuition is outpacing inflation.

Did I mention that if the govt confiscated 100% of the riches income by bayonet point (just bc its fun to scare fat cats) that it wouldnt even put a sizeable dent in the
yearly deficity?

So lets pretend that taxes are increased to whatever rate dems want, just how do you propose the difference in the deficit is closed?

Hopefully your hangover aint too bad from those three Zimas.

PT

Sid Schwab said...

Having answered the question before you asked it, PT, I don't suppose there's any point in repeating it.

At least when I foam at the mouth it's factual. For a while there, you were a sort of voice of sort of reason among the right wingers who drop by here. Now you've resorted to Foxobeckian distortions, the correcting of which, it now seems, will fall on deaf eyes.

Anonymous said...

Indexing benefits to income? Is that like requiring high income earners to pay more for social security and medicare, but then when they retire giving them less in benefits?

If they make no money while retired and their savings have been truncated by higher taxes during their productive years, how are they supposed to make up the difference?

I havent heard Glwnn Bek, Shawn Hamnity, or Bill O'Really speak of this "indexing of benefits". Educate me, oh wise and economically enlightened one.

P.s. Is it fair to classify me as a teabagging RWS? I usualy only comment on things relating to monetary policy here

P.p.s. Did you hear Mee-shell-Oh-bomb-a admit that they have the media on their side during an interview? While not Palin fan, her children have certainly not receives the same consideration from "the media".

Thats all for now. Back to your wine cooler.
PT

Sid Schwab said...

Indexing benefits to income? Is that like requiring high income earners to pay more for social security and medicare, but then when they retire giving them less in benefits?

Yes.

If they make no money while retired and their savings have been truncated by higher taxes during their productive years, how are they supposed to make up the difference?

You can't imagine ways of assessing income, savings, etc?

I havent heard Glwnn Bek, Shawn Hamnity, or Bill O'Really speak of this "indexing of benefits". Educate me, oh wise and economically enlightened one.

Okay, I will.



P.s. Is it fair to classify me as a teabagging RWS? I usualy only comment on things relating to monetary policy here

It's not about subject; it's about quality.

P.p.s. Did you hear Mee-shell-Oh-bomb-a admit that they have the media on their side during an interview? While not Palin fan, her children have certainly not receives the same consideration from "the media".

Beautiful. Palin complains about media attention to herself and her kids while she pimps them out every way she can. Your defense of that is a sine qua non of RWS B.S.

Thats all for now. Back to your wine cooler.

Based on the degradation of your spelling and grammar, I'd say you're the one who needs to lay off the sauce.

Sid Schwab said...

Actually, I erred above by not reading your question carefully: indexing isn't about having wealthy people pay more and get less; it's about paying the same and getting the same benefits but with, for example, higher copays.

Anonymous said...

I read that link twice just to be sure I didnt miss some brilliant new idea.

That price indexing plan can be accurately summarized in one sentence: To maintain social security's solvency, we will require the same level of contributions but pay everyone less.

No $h1t sherlock.

How about offering a choice: Accept the new plan,
opt out completely, or allow partial participation
with reduced benefits later.

At least that makes economic sense, unlike Obamas comment about ATMs and
airport kiosks causing unemployment then a few days later unveiling a 500 million robotics program.

Hopefully theyll invent machines to do simple tasks like holding stop signs at
construction sites or removing an appendix. They can even add a subprogram to pimp med students on the triangle of calot and complain about the length of the suture tails.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obamas-atm-story-cant-explain-slow-hiring-2011-06-16

http://earlyreturns.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/early-returns-20/53-post-gazette-staff/2953-obama-unveils-500m-mfct-plan

All for now. Back to my Ketel One on the rocks.
Pee-Tee

Cory said...

Pee-Tee, I've met some foul angry people in my time. Your comments remind me of them. If reading this blog incites you to indignant nastiness, why do you even bother to take the time from your Ketel bottle?

Duh- It's tuff to defend "stupid" isn't it!!

Anonymous said...

Personally, I don't understand PT's posts on this topic. Made in jest? Made to sound like Frank? Made to sound like a tea party person? Maybe devils advocate?

It's not PT's usual thoughtful style. Maybeeee...it's his evil twin! (Gene Roddenberry, evil Kirk, all that, I KNOW many get the reference, lol.)

Just not the PT's style. Hmmmmm.


bl