Wednesday, August 03, 2011

Debt Ceiling Victory?

There have been all kinds of reports and analyses regarding this debt ceiling deal. The right-wing is divided over this agreement. Hard core conservatives are saying nothing was done and others on the right claim victory.

I can see both sides. If we consider the message of the last mid-term elections, this deal was a total failure. Runaway spending and liberal fiscal policy (if you can call it a policy) was the major reason so many Tea Party candidates did so well and the shift in the House to a Republican majority took place. This deal does very little (if anything) that should sit well with supporters of those candidates. And when you put that together with the fact that this "crisis" was totally manufactured by Barry O & Co., so that they could institute even more burdensome and economically destructive policies upon this country, it's hard not to agree with the elements of the hard-core conservatives. Especially since I count myself among them.

But the other side of the right-wing does have a point that must be accepted as true. The deal, and the debate that led to it, has indeed shifted the overall discussion in Washington from how and where to raise taxes (the left now calls it "raising revenues" so as to deceive---typical) to a focus on spending cuts, where it should have been for a long, long time. This is a good thing and a small but significant first step toward fiscal sanity and the important work of fixing our debt situation.

But it is ONLY a small step and alone accomplishes nothing whatsoever. From this point, the efforts must be doubled to get busy eliminating all that is completely unnecessary in terms of federal responsibility, which of course would include this disaster of a health care plan known as "Obamacare".

As anyone with a lick of sense and internet access can see, our issue isn't revenues, except as they have been obstructed by Obama's lame moves. The Bush tax cuts, like all similar tax cuts by three previous presidents have shown, raise revenues and are more stimulating to the economy than anything the left has offered, or have the brains to imagine. As Marco Rubio has stated so well, our problem isn't taxes, but tax payers. We need more of them and too many people are still out of work, or working for far less than they used to, and it is from people working where revenues come.

Put that together with sensible spending cuts and the result is prosperity once again. It might involve some pain, but we're in pain now as it is. An increase in pain in order to soon be pain-free is a worthy endeavor.

18 comments:

Jim said...

"the fact that this "crisis" was totally manufactured by Barry O & Co."

Totally untrue. Raising the debt limit has been done over and over again with no crisis. Obama requested a clean debt limit increase and was refused by the GOP.

"this disaster of a health care plan known as "Obamacare". "

No it's known as PPACA. And it is NOT a disaster and you have no evidence that it IS a disaster. You just don't like it because the Democrats do. It's almost all Republican ideas.

"As anyone with a lick of sense and internet access can see, our issue isn't revenues"

Ridiculously untrue (I'm using that word, Mark). The biggest part of the deficits today is due to the Bush era tax cuts and their continuation. I've linked to the graph numerous times.

"The Bush tax cuts, like all similar tax cuts by three previous presidents have shown, raise revenues"

There is absolutely NO evidence of this, and in fact, other than George W Bush, the three previous presidents including Reagan ALL RAISED TAXES.

Craig said...

"And it is NOT a disaster and you have no evidence that it IS a disaster."

Actually Jim is correct here, but only on a technicality.

It's not a disaster because it's implementation has been held until after the 2012 election.

This is a convenient way to provide P-Bo with a campaign issue without actually having any substance to stand on.

Craig said...

Perhaps a special one year tax increase on "the rich".

100% on everybody over $200k per year.

That should solve the problem, shouldn't it?

Craig said...

Parkie,

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of a suggestion.

In no place besides your fantasy world did I suggest that the Dems were, are, or ever have proposed a 100% tax on the "rich". Nor did I my comment suggest that the "rich" are or are not paying not enought, too much, just the right amount or anything of the sort. While, in fact the "rich" do pay income tax in out of proportion to their numbers, that was not the point. Nor did I say, hint, or suggest that it was.

I made a suggestion, a proposition if you will. Nothing more, nothing less. It is one thought on how to deal with our national indebtedness.

So, as seems to happen frequently, your response bears no relation to what you are "responding" to. It seems to work better when there is actually a correlation between the two. Maybe in the future you could keep in mind that you are responding to what someone actually said rather than what you "thought" they said.

Marshall Art said...

Craig,

You're free to respond to whomever you feel so inclined. But I'll continue to delete Parkie until he decides to demonstrate any level of risk by submitting a comment with substance. I'll know to what you're responding, as will Parkie and anyone else unfortunate enough to have suffered his pathetic remarks before I delete them. But you're not obliged to respond to anyone, least of all a troll like him.

Craig said...

MA

That's fine. If he addressed me I'll respond. If he responds to me response, I'd appreciate it if you'd leave it long enough so I can see it, but if not no great loss.

Mark said...

Apparently, the raising of the debt ceiling wasn't such a good idea. Immediately afterwards, S&P downgraded our credit rating.

I don't know a better way to read that.

Jim said...

"Apparently, the raising of the debt ceiling wasn't such a good idea. Immediately afterwards, S&P downgraded our credit rating."

Don't you read papers or watch the news or anything besides Fox?

The S&P report said nothing about having raised the debt ceiling. What they said was they didn't have confidence that the debt ceiling would be raised again if necessary and that they did not expect Republicans to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in order to reduce deficits going forward.

Craig said...

Well since the S&P folks suggested that Cut, Cap and Balance would have kept them from dropping the credit rating, maybe the thing to do would be to pass that.

Always On Watch said...

In my view, all this about the debt-ceiling battle was political posturing done with eyes cast to the November 2012 election.

Marshall Art said...

AOW,

I would tend to agree. I've always doubted that the issue was as bad as advertised. I felt that way with the first TARP deal. "Just think how bad it would have been if we didn't..." whatever.

I've read several takes on how we could have dealt with our immediate obligations without defaulting anywhere or denying payments to old people, military personnel, etc.

I've also read nonsense about how cutting things like, for example, NPR or PBS would be worthless considering the size of our debt. Let me tell you, if I need to cut spending at home, I don't worry about whether an unnecessary expenditure is large or small. I cut it. Add up all the little things and one finds much that could easily be cut. Then, we deal with what's left over and we do so with a better understanding of where we really stand.

I don't really care how many times the debt ceiling has been raised or who has raised it. Doing so only provides more room for politicians to spend on credit. What needs to be done is to leave the ceiling alone and deal with the spending. Neither side seems to want to get serious about this, engaging in crap that is no more than reducing how much we'll spend over last year, and then calling that a cut in spending. BS.

One thing is certain: the Democrats will never offer anything that will truly cut spending and they will never get their hands out of our pockets.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Finally getting around to respond to your initial goofy comment.

The GOP refused Obama's "request" because it does nothing to change anything, but will instead exacerbate the real problem, which is spending. Thus, the GOP does not want to raise the ceiling without something akin to cuts to begin getting the fiscal house in order. Only raising the ceiling does indeed "kick the can down the road".

Obamacare is indeed a disaster or no one would be requesting waivers. I don't like it, not because the Dems do, and I don't care whose ideas created it. It's a bad idea because it doesn't address what people want addressed, which is the cost of health care in our country. Those costs are NOT a result of greedy insurers as much as they are the intrusion of gov't into the industry.

Mark is totally correct that revenues are not the issue. The Bush tax cuts led to increased revenues and whatever graph you like to use is obviously misleading. Feel free to link to your graph again if you like.

Jim said...

"The Bush tax cuts led to increased revenues"

No proof of this whatsoever.

"whatever graph you like to use is obviously misleading."

This goofy statement speaks for itself. Obviously. Where's YOUR graph?

Marshall Art said...

Here's one graph. Here's another.

Jim said...

Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc

The fact that revenues rose does not prove that the rise was due to tax cuts. As I recall there was a very, very big housing bubble during those years. Also, I started having to take my shoes off to get on an airplane. I'm pretty sure the shoes thing made revenues go up. I mean, revenues started to climb right after that.

Marshall Art said...

So you demand a graph from me, and I give you two. Then, instead of providing real evidence that refutes my contention, you offer nothing. Four US presidents lowered tax rates. Each time revenues to the federal gov't rose. How much proof do you require to wrap your little mind around the obvious?

Rather than merely pretend the housing bubble was the cause of increased revs to the federal gov't, why not show the correlation that explains how that and not taxes was the cause?

Jim said...

"Four US presidents lowered tax rates. Each time revenues to the federal gov't rose."

Which four presidents?

During the housing bubble in the middle of the last decade, home values rose at record rates, people refinanced and took out cash. And bought and bought and bought. Economic boom, increased tax revenues.

Marshall Art said...

"Which four presidents?"

Harding, Kennedy, Reagan and GW Bush.

Here's primer for you.