CBO: Tax hikes unnecessary

[CARLHAYDEN]

Yes, we appear to finally be getting somewhere.

First, let me say it is nice you have heard of David Ricard (I enter that name for the purpose of educating others who may be reading this thread).

Second, it is nice that you now admit "While there certainly are crowding out effect."  Now, one of the problems with econometrics is that there are no permanent ratios between different parts of the equation.  In this case, some government expenditures are more productive/less unproductive than others, as is the case for private expenditures.  In addition, a government expenditure for infrastructure may be reasonably beneficial up to a certain point, and wasteful beyond that point (building of dams illustrates this).  Now, your supposition that it is at a fixed 25% ratio is simply misguided (its like the bi-metalists of the 19th century who sought a permanent ration between gold and silver).  Some expenditures by government, like many of those for the EPA actually depress the economy.

Heard of? I've been teaching university students on his model of trade for 3 years now.

It is obviously true that both public and private spending can have different levels of efficiency. And of course 25% is not a fixed number, it's merely a number I seen suggested by empirical literature on the topic.

My point is simply that if pure Ricardian equivalence does not hold (and it does not) a spending increase will not be entirely off-set by people saving up for future tax increases. Thus, it will still lead to an overall increase in spending in the economy.

Well, let me give you a couple of examples of variance in impact of government spending.

In example one, government spends money to build a dam which stores water for irrigation, prevents seasonal flooding and provides hydroelectricity.

In another example, the government spends money to harass businesses, doing everything they can to make life worse (what the EPA is doing right now).

[Gustaf]

This is for you Carl:

From the Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18928600):

"A gamble where you bet your country’s good name

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note."

[CARLHAYDEN]

This is for you Carl:

From the Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18928600):

"A gamble where you bet your country’s good name

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note."

The Economist was once a reputable publication.  Over the past decade it has been a proponent of more government.

The assertion that "(t)he White House is offering an 83%-17% split..." (spending cuts to tax increases) is a lie!

Now, Obama has proposed between one and two trillion dollars in tax increases, on a supposed four billion dollar curtailment of the deficits over a ten year period.  So, the proposed tax increase is between twenty five and fifty percent split!

More significantly, tax increases (unless they have an explicit end clause) continue forever unless changed, whereas budgetary spending limits have no legal effect.  What this means is that a President with but one third (plus one) of the votes in either House of Congress could keep a tax increase in effect, whereas a simple majority in Congress can disregard prior commitments to limitations on spending.

So, yes, I can see why you like this proposal.  You love higher taxes and are willing to make promises which will never be kept on reduced spending, as the price to get bigger government.

Like 'Lucy,' you are promising to 'hold' the (line on spending/football), but only one totally gullible would believe such a promise.

[Gustaf]

This is for you Carl:

From the Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18928600):

"A gamble where you bet your country’s good name

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note."

The Economist was once a reputable publication.  Over the past decade it has been a proponent of more government.

The assertion that "(t)he White House is offering an 83%-17% split..." (spending cuts to tax increases) is a lie!

Now, Obama has proposed between one and two trillion dollars in tax increases, on a supposed four billion dollar curtailment of the deficits over a ten year period.  So, the proposed tax increase is between twenty five and fifty percent split!

More significantly, tax increases (unless they have an explicit end clause) continue forever unless changed, whereas budgetary spending limits have no legal effect.  What this means is that a President with but one third (plus one) of the votes in either House of Congress could keep a tax increase in effect, whereas a simple majority in Congress can disregard prior commitments to limitations on spending.

So, yes, I can see why you like this proposal.  You love higher taxes and are willing to make promises which will never be kept on reduced spending, as the price to get bigger government.

Like 'Lucy,' you are promising to 'hold' the (line on spending/football), but only one totally gullible would believe such a promise.

I don't love higher taxes. And I don't know who Lucy is. So I'm afraid you lost me completely.

(And of course calling the Economist a proponent of big government is beyond ludicrous. They even say they're not in the excerpt I posted!)

[CARLHAYDEN]

This is for you Carl:

From the Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/18928600):

"A gamble where you bet your country’s good name

This newspaper has a strong dislike of big government; we have long argued that the main way to right America’s finances is through spending cuts. But you cannot get there without any tax rises. In Britain, for instance, the coalition government aims to tame its deficit with a 3:1 ratio of cuts to hikes. America’s tax take is at its lowest level for decades: even Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he needed to do so.

And the closer you look, the more unprincipled the Republicans look. Earlier this year House Republicans produced a report noting that an 85%-15% split between spending cuts and tax rises was the average for successful fiscal consolidations, according to historical evidence. The White House is offering an 83%-17% split (hardly a huge distance) and a promise that none of the revenue increase will come from higher marginal rates, only from eliminating loopholes. If the Republicans were real tax reformers, they would seize this offer.

Both parties have in recent months been guilty of fiscal recklessness. Right now, though, the blame falls clearly on the Republicans. Independent voters should take note."

The Economist was once a reputable publication.  Over the past decade it has been a proponent of more government.

The assertion that "(t)he White House is offering an 83%-17% split..." (spending cuts to tax increases) is a lie!

Now, Obama has proposed between one and two trillion dollars in tax increases, on a supposed four billion dollar curtailment of the deficits over a ten year period.  So, the proposed tax increase is between twenty five and fifty percent split!

More significantly, tax increases (unless they have an explicit end clause) continue forever unless changed, whereas budgetary spending limits have no legal effect.  What this means is that a President with but one third (plus one) of the votes in either House of Congress could keep a tax increase in effect, whereas a simple majority in Congress can disregard prior commitments to limitations on spending.

So, yes, I can see why you like this proposal.  You love higher taxes and are willing to make promises which will never be kept on reduced spending, as the price to get bigger government.

Like 'Lucy,' you are promising to 'hold' the (line on spending/football), but only one totally gullible would believe such a promise.

I don't love higher taxes. And I don't know who Lucy is. So I'm afraid you lost me completely.

(And of course calling the Economist a proponent of big government is beyond ludicrous. They even say they're not in the excerpt I posted!)

First, I've been reading The Economist for nearly four decades.  I was really saddened when they both took a lurch to the left (slightly over a decade ago) and developed a highly anti-American attitude.

Second, I note that you do NOT dispute the data I presented, which differs remarkably from the false assertions of The Economist.

Third, I note that you do NOT dispute my assertions that tax increases are REAL, while expenditure cuts for the future are purely illusory, and nonbinding.

Finally, in the comic strip Peanuts, every year (for a couple of decades) a character name 'Lucy' would promise to 'hold the football' so that Charlie Brown could kick it.  She NEVER kept her promise.  And there is roughly zero likelihood of Obama keeping any promise to hold down spending.

[Gustaf]

I've been reading the Economist for a decade (I'm not old enough to have done it longer) and I can say with some confidence that it's not a left-wing publication. It has a firm committment to small government and free markets.

I haven't studied the specifics of the proposals of the GOP or Obama (I have no reason to think Obama would come up with a good solution per se - I didn't support him in 2008), but I'm more inclined to trus the Economist than you, to be honest. My point in the article was not what Obama has proposed but what should be done and there I agree with their reasoning - i.e. even though spending cuts should be the main tool in fixing the deficit taxes should play part as well.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I've been reading the Economist for a decade (I'm not old enough to have done it longer) and I can say with some confidence that it's not a left-wing publication. It has a firm committment to small government and free markets.

I haven't studied the specifics of the proposals of the GOP or Obama (I have no reason to think Obama would come up with a good solution per se - I didn't support him in 2008), but I'm more inclined to trus the Economist than you, to be honest. My point in the article was not what Obama has proposed but what should be done and there I agree with their reasoning - i.e. even though spending cuts should be the main tool in fixing the deficit taxes should play part as well.

I note that you "trust" anyone who pushes for tax increases.

Further I noted that the tax increases are real, whereas the "cuts' are purely illusory.

[Gustaf]

I've been reading the Economist for a decade (I'm not old enough to have done it longer) and I can say with some confidence that it's not a left-wing publication. It has a firm committment to small government and free markets.

I haven't studied the specifics of the proposals of the GOP or Obama (I have no reason to think Obama would come up with a good solution per se - I didn't support him in 2008), but I'm more inclined to trus the Economist than you, to be honest. My point in the article was not what Obama has proposed but what should be done and there I agree with their reasoning - i.e. even though spending cuts should be the main tool in fixing the deficit taxes should play part as well.

I note that you "trust" anyone who pushes for tax increases.

Further I noted that the tax increases are real, whereas the "cuts' are purely illusory.

If the cuts are so illusory, why do you even support them?

And I trust one of the world's best known and most reputable magazines over a random poster on the internet, yyes. Regardless of whether they support higher taxes or not. Maybe you should also consider using a standard other than whether someone agrees with you or not to decide how trustworthy they are? The assumption that only those who confirm your opinion can be listened to is a dangerous recipe for intellectual rigidity.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I've been reading the Economist for a decade (I'm not old enough to have done it longer) and I can say with some confidence that it's not a left-wing publication. It has a firm committment to small government and free markets.

I haven't studied the specifics of the proposals of the GOP or Obama (I have no reason to think Obama would come up with a good solution per se - I didn't support him in 2008), but I'm more inclined to trus the Economist than you, to be honest. My point in the article was not what Obama has proposed but what should be done and there I agree with their reasoning - i.e. even though spending cuts should be the main tool in fixing the deficit taxes should play part as well.

I note that you "trust" anyone who pushes for tax increases.

Further I noted that the tax increases are real, whereas the "cuts' are purely illusory.

If the cuts are so illusory, why do you even support them?

And I trust one of the world's best known and most reputable magazines over a random poster on the internet, yyes. Regardless of whether they support higher taxes or not. Maybe you should also consider using a standard other than whether someone agrees with you or not to decide how trustworthy they are? The assumption that only those who confirm your opinion can be listened to is a dangerous recipe for intellectual rigidity.

I understand you inflexibly (and rigidly) find The Economist infallible because their solution to fiscal problems is "more taxes." 

Cutting, expedites, at least significantly is something you and The Economist find "vicious."

Now, apparently you have NOT been following the debate concerning the position of most Republicans in Congress is to insist on enforcement mechanisms for budget cuts, not empty promises from serial liars like Obama.

[Gustaf]

I've been reading the Economist for a decade (I'm not old enough to have done it longer) and I can say with some confidence that it's not a left-wing publication. It has a firm committment to small government and free markets.

I haven't studied the specifics of the proposals of the GOP or Obama (I have no reason to think Obama would come up with a good solution per se - I didn't support him in 2008), but I'm more inclined to trus the Economist than you, to be honest. My point in the article was not what Obama has proposed but what should be done and there I agree with their reasoning - i.e. even though spending cuts should be the main tool in fixing the deficit taxes should play part as well.

I note that you "trust" anyone who pushes for tax increases.

Further I noted that the tax increases are real, whereas the "cuts' are purely illusory.

If the cuts are so illusory, why do you even support them?

And I trust one of the world's best known and most reputable magazines over a random poster on the internet, yyes. Regardless of whether they support higher taxes or not. Maybe you should also consider using a standard other than whether someone agrees with you or not to decide how trustworthy they are? The assumption that only those who confirm your opinion can be listened to is a dangerous recipe for intellectual rigidity.

I understand you inflexibly (and rigidly) find The Economist infallible because their solution to fiscal problems is "more taxes." 

Cutting, expedites, at least significantly is something you and The Economist find "vicious."

Now, apparently you have NOT been following the debate concerning the position of most Republicans in Congress is to insist on enforcement mechanisms for budget cuts, not empty promises from serial liars like Obama.

No, I don't find them infallible - I just trust them more than I trust you. There's a big difference. I often disagree with their conclusions.

There solution is not more taxes and they are not opposed to spending cuts. From the same article (which I assume you did not read):

"The House of Representatives, under Republican control as a result of last November’s mid-term elections, has balked at passing the necessary bill. That is perfectly reasonable: until recently the Republicans had been exercising their clear electoral mandate to hold the government of Barack Obama to account, insisting that they will not permit a higher debt ceiling until agreement is reached on wrenching cuts to public spending. Until they started to play hardball in this way, Mr Obama had been deplorably insouciant about the medium-term picture, repeatedly failing in his budgets and his state-of-the-union speeches to offer any path to a sustainable deficit. Under heavy Republican pressure, he has been forced to rethink."

They also lauded Paul Ryan's proposal when it first came, arguing that Obama needed to accept that large spending cuts would have ot be made.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I notice (again) you both ignore points I made, because you cannot deal with them, and make false assertions.

First, as I noted, your and Obama's pledges on future cuts are illusory and unenforceable absent a mechanism to limit future expenditures, which Republicans in Congress have proposed (http://www.cutcapandbalanceact.com/)  Obama is on record as opposing this measure, and I assume you join him, as you both want more government and higher taxes.

Second, of course you reflexively disagree with me. 

I want less government, you want more government, and more government, and more government, ad infinitum.

I want a limit on taxes whereas you want more and more and more and higher and higher and higher taxes.

Third, if you reread the article you posted, you will see where The Economist approved of the call for more taxes.  Did you miss that?  Oh, yes its nice to see The Economist is  willing to consider the idea of some reduction in the rate of increase of expenditures, provided that first more tax money is delivered to Moloch/Leviathan.  So generous of them.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First, as I noted, your and Obama's pledges on future cuts are illusory and unenforceable absent a mechanism to limit future expenditures, which Republicans in Congress have proposed (http://www.cutcapandbalanceact.com/)

Excuse me while I laugh.

LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH

I needed that.  Santayana must be smiling somewhere. Does the name Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act of 1985 ring a bell?  What makes you think resurrecting this old chestnut will be anymore successful at bringing the country to a badly needed balanced budget this time around?

[Gustaf]

I notice (again) you both ignore points I made, because you cannot deal with them, and make false assertions.

First, as I noted, your and Obama's pledges on future cuts are illusory and unenforceable absent a mechanism to limit future expenditures, which Republicans in Congress have proposed (http://www.cutcapandbalanceact.com/)  Obama is on record as opposing this measure, and I assume you join him, as you both want more government and higher taxes.

Second, of course you reflexively disagree with me. 

I want less government, you want more government, and more government, and more government, ad infinitum.

I want a limit on taxes whereas you want more and more and more and higher and higher and higher taxes.

Third, if you reread the article you posted, you will see where The Economist approved of the call for more taxes.  Did you miss that?  Oh, yes its nice to see The Economist is  willing to consider the idea of some reduction in the rate of increase of expenditures, provided that first more tax money is delivered to Moloch/Leviathan.  So generous of them.

I have not made any false assertions nor ignored any of your "points" (if one can call them that). You have, however. In this post for instance, you claim that I want more government ad inifitum (are you trying to impress me with Latin words now? Didn't work.) even though I explicitly said I didn't. The same goes for more and higher taxes.

You also assume that I join Obama on an issue even though I did not even support him in 2008. Which of course makes little sense.

Finally, if YOU reread the article you will see that The Economist criticizes Obama for not wanting to accept large spending cuts, favours large spending cuts and argues that spending cuts should be the main part of solving the problem.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First, as I noted, your and Obama's pledges on future cuts are illusory and unenforceable absent a mechanism to limit future expenditures, which Republicans in Congress have proposed (http://www.cutcapandbalanceact.com/)

Excuse me while I laugh.

LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH

I needed that.  Santayana must be smiling somewhere. Does the name Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act of 1985 ring a bell?  What makes you think resurrecting this old chestnut will be anymore successful at bringing the country to a badly needed balanced budget this time around?

By the way, I thought I'd elaborate on how ludicrous this idea is.  (I have to wonder whether the people actually behind this don't already realize all this, since the link that CARL gave doesn't include anywhere on it the text of the Cut, Cap, and Evade Act. I had to look it up for myself on THOMAS.)

To begin with, the act doesn't list a single function of government that is to be cut, capped, or reduced.  To be fair, it does for a few general categories set limits for spending in them, but no details are given -- no actual decisions are made.  This is exactly the same failed approach employed in Graham-Rudman-Hollings over a quarter of a century ago.  Defer actually saying what will be cut, and instead set out some impressive sounding numbers that promise we will have a balanced budget in the future and "force" a future Congress to do what the current Congress is unable to do.  Problem is, it didn't work out that way back then, and I see no reason to believe it would work this way now.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, as I noted, your and Obama's pledges on future cuts are illusory and unenforceable absent a mechanism to limit future expenditures, which Republicans in Congress have proposed (http://www.cutcapandbalanceact.com/)

Excuse me while I laugh.

LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH

I needed that.  Santayana must be smiling somewhere. Does the name Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act of 1985 ring a bell?  What makes you think resurrecting this old chestnut will be anymore successful at bringing the country to a badly needed balanced budget this time around?

Of course the idea of limiting spending seems laughable to you.

If you had bothered to read the link you would see that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States is included i n the package.

But then, maybe you don't believe the Constitution should be obeyed, or that expenditures should be limited.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I notice (again) you both ignore points I made, because you cannot deal with them, and make false assertions.

First, as I noted, your and Obama's pledges on future cuts are illusory and unenforceable absent a mechanism to limit future expenditures, which Republicans in Congress have proposed (http://www.cutcapandbalanceact.com/)  Obama is on record as opposing this measure, and I assume you join him, as you both want more government and higher taxes.

Second, of course you reflexively disagree with me.  

I want less government, you want more government, and more government, and more government, ad infinitum.

I want a limit on taxes whereas you want more and more and more and higher and higher and higher taxes.

Third, if you reread the article you posted, you will see where The Economist approved of the call for more taxes.  Did you miss that?  Oh, yes its nice to see The Economist is  willing to consider the idea of some reduction in the rate of increase of expenditures, provided that first more tax money is delivered to Moloch/Leviathan.  So generous of them.

I have not made any false assertions nor ignored any of your "points" (if one can call them that). You have, however. In this post for instance, you claim that I want more government ad inifitum (are you trying to impress me with Latin words now? Didn't work.) even though I explicitly said I didn't. The same goes for more and higher taxes.

You also assume that I join Obama on an issue even though I did not even support him in 2008. Which of course makes little sense.

Finally, if YOU reread the article you will see that The Economist criticizes Obama for not wanting to accept large spending cuts, favours large spending cuts and argues that spending cuts should be the main part of solving the problem.

First, you have once again ignored my point about the enforceability of any promises on curtailing federal spending.  Why?

Second, as I previously noted, the proposed Obama tax increases are far more than the 17% of the suggested deal you have suggested is the case.  Why do you insist on giving false and misleading allegations?  Is this just another case of 'lowballing'?  Just how much in new/higher taxes do you want to impose on the American people?


Third, you did make it clear that you don't want to tax Americans to death (you are prepared to allow us to keep enough of our own money to survive to pay more taxes in the future).  So, NO, I have not suggested that you "... want more government ad inifitum..." but rather you will limit it short of killing us.  

[Gustaf]

I notice (again) you both ignore points I made, because you cannot deal with them, and make false assertions.

First, as I noted, your and Obama's pledges on future cuts are illusory and unenforceable absent a mechanism to limit future expenditures, which Republicans in Congress have proposed (http://www.cutcapandbalanceact.com/)  Obama is on record as opposing this measure, and I assume you join him, as you both want more government and higher taxes.

Second, of course you reflexively disagree with me.  

I want less government, you want more government, and more government, and more government, ad infinitum.

I want a limit on taxes whereas you want more and more and more and higher and higher and higher taxes.

Third, if you reread the article you posted, you will see where The Economist approved of the call for more taxes.  Did you miss that?  Oh, yes its nice to see The Economist is  willing to consider the idea of some reduction in the rate of increase of expenditures, provided that first more tax money is delivered to Moloch/Leviathan.  So generous of them.

I have not made any false assertions nor ignored any of your "points" (if one can call them that). You have, however. In this post for instance, you claim that I want more government ad inifitum (are you trying to impress me with Latin words now? Didn't work.) even though I explicitly said I didn't. The same goes for more and higher taxes.

You also assume that I join Obama on an issue even though I did not even support him in 2008. Which of course makes little sense.

Finally, if YOU reread the article you will see that The Economist criticizes Obama for not wanting to accept large spending cuts, favours large spending cuts and argues that spending cuts should be the main part of solving the problem.

First, you have once again ignored my point about the enforceability of any promises on curtailing federal spending.  Why?

Second, as I previously noted, the proposed Obama tax increases are far more than the 17% of the suggested deal you have suggested is the case.  Why do you insist on giving false and misleading allegations?  Is this just another case of 'lowballing'?  Just how much in new/higher taxes do you want to impose on the American people?


Third, you did make it clear that you don't want to tax Americans to death (you are prepared to allow us to keep enough of our own money to survive to pay more taxes in the future).  So, NO, I have not suggested that you "... want more government ad inifitum..." but rather you will limit it short of killing us.  

I have bolded some parts for you.

The rest is, as most of what you've been posting here, not really relevant to anything I've said.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Gustaf,

First, I will correct my error my earlier error by repeatedly noting that you have expressed a willingness to allow Americans to keep just enough money to survive on so that they can keep on paying more and more taxes.

Second, I repeat again, that you keep ignoring the point that Obama is pushing for a tax increase far larger than you alledged.  Why do you keep ignoring this point?

Third, promises to maybe reduce the rate of increase of government spending someday are generally unenforceable.  The program I suggested will make such spending limits enforceable, which I suppose is why you keep ignoring it.

Is it that enforceable limits on government is "irrelevant" to you way of viewing government?

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

First, I will correct my error my earlier error by repeatedly noting that you have expressed a willingness to allow Americans to keep just enough money to survive on so that they can keep on paying more and more taxes.

Second, I repeat again, that you keep ignoring the point that Obama is pushing for a tax increase far larger than you alledged.  Why do you keep ignoring this point?

Third, promises to maybe reduce the rate of increase of government spending someday are generally unenforceable.  The program I suggested will make such spending limits enforceable, which I suppose is why you keep ignoring it.

Is it that enforceable limits on government is "irrelevant" to you way of viewing government?

So, should I interpret that first paragraph as an apology for your deliberate lie about my position? If so, I'll gladly accept that apology.

As I stated repeatedly I don't particularly care about Obama's position per se. I'm not an Obama-supporter. However, I'm more inclined to trust the Economist numbers on his deal than I am to trust yours. At least until you can provide some independent source backing up your claim.

I don't mind enforceable limits on spending. I just don't think that discussion is particularly relevant to the points I've been making in this thread.

See, in my country there is a cap on spending increases, so the state is only allowed to increase spending by a certain percentage each year. And the government is also obliged to run a surplus of 1% of GDP. And Sweden also has a top-down budget process - that is, parliament must first agree on aggregate spending and accept that as an entire package, prohibiting lobby groups adding on pork during the final days of passage. I'm a strong supporter of all of those measures, but it doesn't really affect my stand in this thread.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Gustaf,

First, I will correct my error my earlier error by repeatedly noting that you have expressed a willingness to allow Americans to keep just enough money to survive on so that they can keep on paying more and more taxes.

Second, I repeat again, that you keep ignoring the point that Obama is pushing for a tax increase far larger than you alledged.  Why do you keep ignoring this point?

Third, promises to maybe reduce the rate of increase of government spending someday are generally unenforceable.  The program I suggested will make such spending limits enforceable, which I suppose is why you keep ignoring it.

Is it that enforceable limits on government is "irrelevant" to you way of viewing government?

So, should I interpret that first paragraph as an apology for your deliberate lie about my position? If so, I'll gladly accept that apology.

As I stated repeatedly I don't particularly care about Obama's position per se. I'm not an Obama-supporter. However, I'm more inclined to trust the Economist numbers on his deal than I am to trust yours. At least until you can provide some independent source backing up your claim.

I don't mind enforceable limits on spending. I just don't think that discussion is particularly relevant to the points I've been making in this thread.

See, in my country there is a cap on spending increases, so the state is only allowed to increase spending by a certain percentage each year. And the government is also obliged to run a surplus of 1% of GDP. And Sweden also has a top-down budget process - that is, parliament must first agree on aggregate spending and accept that as an entire package, prohibiting lobby groups adding on pork during the final days of passage. I'm a strong supporter of all of those measures, but it doesn't really affect my stand in this thread.

See, in my country there is NO cap on spending increases, but sane people would like one.

Obama has rejected any enforceable spending cap, and threatened to veto one if passed by Congress.

So, any 'deal' as it stands is only a deal for higher taxes.

Now, unforunately, the media is refusing to provide information about the tax increases proposed by Obama.

Here, however is a brief summary of what is happening:"the White House is proposing between $1.4 and $1.7 trillion in tax increases."  No, I cannot provide the source at this time, but it has been confirmed by others knowledgeable about the process.

If the taxes were only 17% of the package, as The Economist falsely alledged, the proposal would have been adopted long ago.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First, as I noted, your and Obama's pledges on future cuts are illusory and unenforceable absent a mechanism to limit future expenditures, which Republicans in Congress have proposed (http://www.cutcapandbalanceact.com/)

Excuse me while I laugh.

LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH

I needed that.  Santayana must be smiling somewhere. Does the name Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act of 1985 ring a bell?  What makes you think resurrecting this old chestnut will be anymore successful at bringing the country to a badly needed balanced budget this time around?

Of course the idea of limiting spending seems laughable to you.

No, I'm laughing at the idea that you think that even if this passed that this would actually accomplish anything.

If you had bothered to read the link you would see that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States is included in the package.

But then, maybe you don't believe the Constitution should be obeyed, or that expenditures should be limited.

No, I read it, and all it calls for is sending the amendment contained in SJ Res 10 to the States, not that the States approve it.  Calling that proposed amendment a balanced budget amendment would be like calling an H-bomb and explosive device, as the balanced budget supermajority it requires is the least ideological item in the whole proposal. Even in the unlikely event that it were to happen to pass Congress, I don't see 38 States willing to commit the Federal government to a fiscal suicide pact.  That's probably why the amendment doesn't include the by now customary seven-year time limit on ratification. Even the backers know that 38 States aren't that crazy right now.

I see no reason to make the United States government as dysfunctional as California's by introducing supermajority requirements to accomplish anything. It's bad enough that the filibuster is way over used in the Senate.  I can see the point of having the filibuster when it comes to judicial appointments, since they are lifetime appointments, but precious little else.  If voters think the Federal government is too spending too much money, they already have a tool available to them to achieve fiscal discipline.  It's called the ballot box.  Judging by your support for SJ Res 10, it appears that even if you have heard of the ballot box, you don't believe in it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, as I noted, your and Obama's pledges on future cuts are illusory and unenforceable absent a mechanism to limit future expenditures, which Republicans in Congress have proposed (http://www.cutcapandbalanceact.com/)

Excuse me while I laugh.

LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH

I needed that.  Santayana must be smiling somewhere. Does the name Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act of 1985 ring a bell?  What makes you think resurrecting this old chestnut will be anymore successful at bringing the country to a badly needed balanced budget this time around?

Of course the idea of limiting spending seems laughable to you.

No, I'm laughing at the idea that you think that even if this passed that this would actually accomplish anything.

If you had bothered to read the link you would see that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States is included in the package.

But then, maybe you don't believe the Constitution should be obeyed, or that expenditures should be limited.

No, I read it, and all it calls for is sending the amendment contained in SJ Res 10 to the States, not that the States approve it.  Calling that proposed amendment a balanced budget amendment would be like calling an H-bomb and explosive device, as the balanced budget supermajority it requires is the least ideological item in the whole proposal. Even in the unlikely event that it were to happen to pass Congress, I don't see 38 States willing to commit the Federal government to a fiscal suicide pact.  That's probably why the amendment doesn't include the by now customary seven-year time limit on ratification. Even the backers know that 38 States aren't that crazy right now.

I see no reason to make the United States government as dysfunctional as California's by introducing supermajority requirements to accomplish anything. It's bad enough that the filibuster is way over used in the Senate.  I can see the point of having the filibuster when it comes to judicial appointments, since they are lifetime appointments, but precious little else.  If voters think the Federal government is too spending too much money, they already have a tool available to them to achieve fiscal discipline.  It's called the ballot box.  Judging by your support for SJ Res 10, it appears that even if you have heard of the ballot box, you don't believe in it.

Why don't we send the matter to the states to see if they will approve of a balanced budget amendment?

I realize you seem to believe that any enforceable limitations on government expenditures would be "disfunctional" as you seem to believe that government, especially that level of government most distant from the people should grow larger and larger.

Yes, to you limiting the federal governmebt is "crazy."

Oh, and according to Gallup, here's what the people have to say about your proposed tax increases:

Americans Worry That Final Plan Won't Include Major Spending Cuts

Americans continue to express a strong desire that any agreement that is reached include plans for major cuts in future spending.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148562/Americans-Including-Republicans-Debt-Compromise.aspx

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why don't we send the matter to the states to see if they will approve of a balanced budget amendment?

Because I think the Government Dysfunction Amendment is a bad idea.  A pure Balanced Budget Amendment is something I'm neutral on, tho I think it needs some mechanism to allow counter-cyclical spending to happen without triggering a supermajority vote, most likely by placing the programs that are supposed to increase spending during an economic downturn into some sort of side-budget escrow fund set up so that it would run surpluses in the good years to pay for the increased spending in the bad.

I realize you seem to believe that any enforceable limitations on government expenditures would be "dysfunctional" as you seem to believe that government, especially that level of government most distant from the people should grow larger and larger.

Yes, to you limiting the federal government is "crazy."

No, I believe that people have the right to expect that the government they elect is capable of doing things without appeasing those who lost the election.  I believe that to be the case regardless of whether the Republicans or the Democrats control the government.

Oh, and according to Gallup, here's what the people have to say about your proposed tax increases:

The lack of any plans of what functions the government now does are to be cut is precisely the biggest flaw with the Cut, Cap, and Evade Act you favor.  All it proposes is some nebulous cotton candy promises of spending cuts while leaving the responsibility of deciding what exactly gets to the future.

Americans Worry That Final Plan Won't Include Major Spending Cuts

Americans continue to express a strong desire that any agreement that is reached include plans for major cuts in future spending.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148562/Americans-Including-Republicans-Debt-Compromise.aspx

I also see you apparently are continuing to engage in your usual distortions, since you totally forgot to mention that by an even larger margin in that same poll, even Republicans want a compromise on the debt ceiling more than that their side should hold out for a perfect plan.

You ought to know by now that I will click through on your links and point out when you selectively skew the info contained in them.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Hmm.

According to Reuters, President Obama is supporting a plan which includes $1.2 trillion in new revenues  with  $2.55 trillion is supposed savings over 10 years. 

Now, to me that adds up (if we assume the “savings” actually occur), to a total of $3.75 trillion.

According to my calculator, $1.2 trillion is 32 percent of $3.75 trillion.

Now, I had previously pointed out that the revenue enhancements, or to be more honest about it, tax increases would be between one and two trillion.

On the other hand,  Gustaf kept trying to peddle the myth that such revenue enhancements would only amount to 17 percent of the package.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/19/us-usa-debt-gang-idUSTRE76I5CK20110719

[Gustaf]

Hmm.

According to Reuters, President Obama is supporting a plan which includes $1.2 trillion in new revenues  with  $2.55 trillion is supposed savings over 10 years. 

Now, to me that adds up (if we assume the “savings” actually occur), to a total of $3.75 trillion.

According to my calculator, $1.2 trillion is 32 percent of $3.75 trillion.

Now, I had previously pointed out that the revenue enhancements, or to be more honest about it, tax increases would be between one and two trillion.

On the other hand,  Gustaf kept trying to peddle the myth that such revenue enhancements would only amount to 17 percent of the package.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/19/us-usa-debt-gang-idUSTRE76I5CK20110719

The plan cited in the article is not Obama's plan, and thus not the plan we were discussing earlier. Furthermore, the plan includes tax-cuts as well as tax hikes which means your math is misleading: "Conrad was quick to say that while there are $1.2 trillion in new revenues, the overall plan envisions a $1.5 trillion tax cut that would be achieved through broad tax reforms."