In today’s Washington Post (12/2/10), in the news article “Deficit Commission Sets Ideology Aside,” reporters Lori Montgomery and Brady Dennis explain why the commission is not ideological:
Confronted with a deficit-reduction plan loaded with political dynamite, members from both parties set aside ideological orthodoxy at least briefly, sparking hope that their work could ignite a serious effort to reduce government debt and spare the nation from a European-style fiscal crisis.
But the notion that the deficit is one of the most pressing issues facing the country– “The Moment of Truth” is the title of the commission’s report–is profoundly ideological to begin with.
Though the commission and the Post reporters treat the necessity of reducing the deficit as a sort of universally understood truth, many economists do not agree, arguing that the spending cuts that deficit-cutting would entail would further decrease demand in an already demand-starved economy.
By embracing deficit-cutting ideology to the exclusion of the views of many dissenting experts, instead of showing that the commission has put aside ideology, the Post reminds once again how deeply ideological our corporate media can be.
We must understand the core of this problem is missed in this discussion.The cancer we are fighting is ..does the money we are spending have anything to back it up?Does the money we are printing- have anything behind it?IF it does not, then we are simply pushing back the time when everything must re-boot.And everyday it gets harder.IT is no different than the average person living on a maxed out credit card.Not 20 thou…..maybe more like 20 million!TAlking about how we will continue to keep our standard of living with that hanging over our heads is insanity.
The foolishness we are expected to swallow – Now is the time to expand benefits to the middle and poor classes and to tax the ultra rich!! This is the only way to defeat this recession! The debt panel if nothing else is rife with ideology against workers!
michael e
The value of money is based on public opinion. The public must be of the opinion that money will be accepted in exchange for goods and services. Even gold certificates rely on the opinion that there exists enough gold to redeem them; and this has rarely been true.
The problem is that the present rules of the money game allows money to concentrate into ever fewer hands. Money that is not taxed from those who have accumulated most of it will be borrowed from those same people. The rules of the money game served the economy much better when the top tax rate was 70 per cent and over. Now those who have loaned the money instead of paying taxes will be owed nearly one trillion dollars annually in interest on previous loans.
The cure for the present austerity is not more austerity. Do not call for a medieval barber to help a victim of blood loss. Further bleeding will not help the patient.
The major problem with this debt is that it is used to finance a party for those at the top and then as a justification for those at the bottom to show some responsibility. If you restore tax rates to their pre-Reagan rates, and stop paying for multiple wars that are making us less safe, the only problem is our out of control health care costs, which would be solved with any system that would have universal coverage and standards that were regulated.
The Deficit Commission itself, established by Obama due to pressure from the right is made up of 18 people, 14 of which are fiscal conservatives. Therefore is ideological by its very nature. What the commission recommends, among other things is cut taxes for corporations, bring the tax rate for the wealthy down to 29%; while cutting social security benefits and medicare neither of which are involved in the deficit but let’s do it anyway they say; the Republicans are always on the attack on Social Security and Medicare. Offhand it seems the plan is a Republican plan and therefore, ideological. If Republicans are anything, it’s ideological; to the point where it is all that matters; not what is good for the country, or good for the people, or the environment.
Wow Glen…70%tax rate at the top huh?Why not 98%?Or 99?Or tax Bill Gates till he makes exactly what….YOU MAKE!!!!Ok Im not going to argue capitalism vs an empowered government that punitively taxes its most successful people and redistributes their wealth till we are all more equal.It is wrong, and has never worked -but believe away.I will say that now is the time to cut or keep taxes low on EVERYONE, until we recover to the point that this discussion is not laughable.The government is not capable of using the poors, or the middle class, or the rich/ultra riches money in better ways than the people who earned it!PERIOD!As bad as the worst of the worst may be ..the government is 100 times stupider(love that word)in how they use our money.They print it- then they burn it.They take it and flush a goodly amount of it.Wanna see how little I care about money….let me spend yours.
It seems most people understand the “Deficit Commission” recommendations are more of the same “tonic” from Washington insiders: benefitting the rich by sticking it to the middle class and poor. Privatizing gain and socializing loss is not a recipe for an invigorated economy. It’s almost as if the very rich, and their shills in Congress, are in the process of abandoning ship, accumulating wealth with a vengance, in anticipation of a sinking US ship of state. Regular Americans must wrest control of our production systems from the likes of the Koch brothers, not unlike Argentina did several years ago, to prevent our nation from melting down catastrophically.
Watching michael e struggle with basic economics and tax policy is like watching a starfish working with a can opener.
So much for grande and disconnected analysis.
The bottom line is the middle class are loosing their homes and the poor are getting hungrier…what a recipe for revolution.
OK, here’s the truth. I don’t give a good flying flock about rich people. I honestly don’t. I mean it’s perfectly clear that they don’t give a damn about anything but themselves so why should I? As Busch himself pointed out, Wall Street got drunk. So what did the american taxpayers do about it? We gave them a whole case of the most expensive single malt whiskey we could buy and they just went on another binge. Now they’re driving back to their home in the highlands (after firing their driver for being late to take his grand daughter to school because both of the parents were working late) and in a drunken stupor they’ve plowed their Escalade into the side of a bus. No worries, they’ve got 12 air bags, a seat belt and really good insurance. The only problem is that we’re all on that bus (had to sell the car to pay the rent after walking away from the underwater house) and now the bus is careening out of controll headed for a cliff. And now, to buy another villa in the Bahamas, they want us to slash our retirement, cut our pay and reduce their taxes. I don’t give a good flying flock about rich people. I honestly don’t.
Please don’t think I’m not aware of the injustice of making sweeping generalities. I’m aware, of course, that there are rich folk, plenty of them, that understand that there is dignity in all who toil as they take part in the American Dream. That no child picks its’ heritage and each must have an equal shot at that dream lest it cheapen us all. They don’t see the less fortunate as lesser beings and truely hope for all in our land to have the necessities of a decent life without want of nutritious food, warmth and shelter, and medical care when in need. the problem is, quite frankly, that they seldom realize that their voice is needed from within the government to counteract those who would ruin the immage of the wealthy; those without concience, and those who want to use government to create their own fortunes, and then use and push down the rest.
And well you shouldn’t, naturalist1. They’re doing really well right now, and have been for the last thirty years. You know what, Glen Fritz? You’re right. During the Eisenhower presidency, with top tax rates at over 90% on the last dollar earned, the middle class in this country expanded rapidly, and upwardly. We can have one of two things: Either it’s a low tax, low wage society (what we have now, and far into the forseable future), or a high tax, high wage society. With the former, we have only one future: degraded and degrading politcal culture, high crime, and utter lawlessness, failure, and rank stupidity. With the latter, we have a chance to become a real democracy, a Republic that places civic duty and knowledge before materialism, theft, cronyism, and an imbecile consumer mindset. The “Deficit Commission” (all picked by the President) will, sooner or later, ratify a document that calls for even more “sacrifice” by the lower 90% of citizens–those who have been getting screwed for the last 30 years under Republican and neo-Republican administrations. I ask a simple question: Why would our great “liberal” president place so great a fraud and right-wing hater of the common man as Alan Simpson on the panel? Why? They got eleven votes on their latest plan to fuck over even more working people (the great middle and lower classes); they need just three votes to send their death sentence to a reactionary House and a pusilanimous Senate for almost certain approval. It will take just a little “comprimising,” and Jan Schakowsky (one of three or four true liberals on the president’s panel of 14) will watch helplessly as a truly reactionary and foul plan will become that much closer to law. Will the President screw ovewr even more of his base? I don’t know, but judging from what he just did to Federal employees, I’m going to lay down a big bet in Vegas soon.
Good show naturalist.
Tim lets say we kick the top rate to 90% as you say.Im at a loss as to how this helps the middle or lower class.So the rich wont be as rich.Use Bill Gates as an example.Ok he takes in a lot less so he either raises prices(because corporations never get a tax hike they just pass it on to the consumer)or….He cuts down on the size of his output and in effect down sizes.Obama once said “when is enough enough”?well if enough for Bill was a million dollars i cant see how that is better than what we now have gained through his unfettered efforts.
New start up businesses that are looking to someday be rich and prosperous will understand just how far to go before it simply is not worth the effort.
Some people think the rich are simply programed to work hard,and wether they make 10 thou or ten million they will just pound it out.Little worker bees of society.That is just rot.
The old saying that i have never worked for a poor man is true.So lets state the case.Your case.How much is enough?And Tim i want a figure this time.How much should any one man have before our government steps in to confiscate and redistribute his hard earned wealth?I am not being a wise guy here.I understand your politics and with that in mind i am interested in how you see this.
By government borrowing from the rich, those who have money far in excess of their needs for a comfortable life, the bottom 90% are condemned to live with higher taxes to pay interest to those rich. And the bottom 90% will live with austerity measures such as reduced payments for their retirement, higher health care costs, reduced social services such as police, fire fighters, and educators.
Nearly one trillion dollars of tax receipts will go to pay interest to the wealthy, those that can most afford to pay taxes and receive the most benefit from the government.
Glen do you know what percentage of taxes that those you call rich(over 250 k )pay?And how much the bottom 50% pays?How about almost all- and none at all.The rich of course have better retirement…they put more in.But as for higher health cost and social services they suffer that as well.
Where do you see the government paying interest to the wealthy.I need that guys number myself.And since when did succeeding become an evil enterprise?This is just class warfare fanfare.
When the statutory tax rates were in the 90% or even 70% range there were so many deductions and loopholes, nobody really paid those pie in the sky rates that were put out to selude people into thinking we were determined to tax the rich, or as Sen.Russell Long of the Finance Committee used to say “tax that man behind the tree”.
Obama needs conservative and Republican credibility. Not to get Republican votes, but to get open minded independents who are still employed. He’s glad to be able to say I appointed that commission–see how serious I am. I even listen to their ideas and after dutifully making an eloquent speech in favor of fairness, will accept what parts of it he has to accept, if they can round up the votes to pass it.
For christ sakes if you want to tax the rich just flat tax it.Everybody will have skin in the game.no loopholes.And if the gov raises taxes all get hit.
Individuals pay a flat tax rate with no special interest breaks and no loopholes. Corporate persons should pay no less, again with no special interest breaks and no loopholes.
The better the economy, the more tax the government can collect without raising anyone’s tax rate.
Include ALL income including Cap. Gains and dividends, and ALL corporations including religeous institutions (chariity work excluded, max 15% oversight, 85% or more to recipients and full disclosure), NO loopholes and Poverty line exclusion and count me in. KISS
Naturalist
Im Ok with poverty line exclusion (though it is probably hard to do)and no loopholes, but cap gains??Don’t know.They are basically your profit.So we tax a pizza manufacturer on everything he uses 30%… then another tax on his profits?We are getting murky again.A flat tax on pretty much everything from gum to guns should cut through automatically all the smoke and mirrors in theory. Disclosure would be a done deal.Explain how you see 15% oversight and 85% to recipients)Ending relig deductions is something that is gonna be a firestorm.The problem with a fair tax or a flat tax is not will it work.It will.The problem is government hands control of your money back to you.You can be frugal or ostentatious.And that is the last thing they want.Also these taxes would effect people who now get a government kickback. Support.That 50 % that now pays nothing would be paying something. Though the so called rich would still pay around 80-90%.And that means government would loose leverage on using the so called rich as a scapegoat.Taxes go up ……..everybody screams.This is why Rs and Ds are not running to this idea.Same as taking away earmarks.Line item veto.This is the air they breath partner.And it is a rarified air.