Fiscal irresponsibility - McCain & Obama tax policies

[Archaea]

When liberals "cry" about "fiscal responsibility" their only complaint is that we're not taxing enough.

And if they speak about cutting spending, it's only military spending that they cut.

So until everything is on the table, including entitlements, and government employees, there is no reason to make any concession on taxation.

Obama's plan in a nutshell.

Tax "rich".

Cut and run from Iraq.

Eliminate military.

Cultivate class dissension.

Turn our country into France. Make entitlements the term of the day, further socialize medicine, increase regulation on the division between investment banking and commercial or consumer banking, create a huge new unaffordable bureaucracy for health care [why does this concern nobody but me?], eliminate all drilling options for oil, continuation of the opposition for nuclear power etc.

At least in France, they allow for nuclear power.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Archaea

create a huge new unaffordable bureaucracy for health care [why does this concern nobody but me?]

If there is one person on this board who doesn't want socialized medicine its me.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

If there is one person on this board who doesn't want socialized medicine its me.

Doesn't his cry for a new bureaucracy for health insurance just make your blood run?

If I knew nothing else about a candidate, this policy statement alone would probably disqualify him.

I deal extensively with Medicare, CMS and other governmental regulatory agencies. The last thing we need is another one. I'd probably do well, but it will grotesquely increase the cost of health care and make physicians' lives harder. IT will suck.

I have never experienced any business sector improving efficiency due to regulation and it is never easier.

Everybody, if they were informed, should be screaming bloody murder over this proposal. Why are people ignoring it as the worst idea to come out a man's brain?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

How much of the revenue that wasn't recovered was the result of not cutting the wasteful social programs?

An honest question, as I have no idea.

the study only looks at lost tax revenue. Spending would be separately considered.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

the study only looks at lost tax revenue. Spending would be separately considered.

Fair enough.

How about this question then - How much revenue would there be if wasteful social programs were cut compared to lost revenue from tax cuts?

My guess would be that the tax cuts would be a smaller amount.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Fair enough.

How about this question then - How much revenue would there be if wasteful social programs were cut compared to lost revenue from tax cuts?

My guess would be that the tax cuts would be a smaller amount.

well, depends on how much you cut each. if the same amount each, then you're right. If you cut programs by $1 you'll get $1 in revenue. If you cut taxes by $1, you can probably get 10 cents back and you'll lose only 90 cents.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Well, no surprise there. I don't expect the rich to just sit on the couch and relax when taxes go up. I simply dispute that they don't find new ways to prevent the feds from getting their money. Perhaps before a tax increase they had planned to sink money into R&D for product X ... but now that product X is being taxed, they elect for product Y. Or worse, they choose not to develop a new product at all.

That would be a separate study. We've already established that the rich people don't work less when they're taxed more. The effect of taxes on firm behavior would be a separate consideration.

One could just as easily say that increased tax receipts after a tax hike are unrelated to the tax hike. And tax cuts may assist in coming out of a recession, thus making them an indirect cause of increased receipts.

If tax cuts assist in coming out of a recession, then one would expect them to assist in increasing receipts, not be the main cause. I'm doubtful the impact of any fiscal policy is that great compared to the onslaught of the business cycle.

Anyhow, I'm not sure of how they sort out the effects, but here is Romney's man on the whole thing:

In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the same thing.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/...nd-cranks.html

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by Archaea

When liberals "cry" about "fiscal responsibility" their only complaint is that we're not taxing enough.

And if they speak about cutting spending, it's only military spending that they cut.

So until everything is on the table, including entitlements, and government employees, there is no reason to make any concession on taxation.

Here is the big difference between Dems & Reps on government & fiscal responsiblity: Dems recognize that government has an important - but limited - role to play in society. There are some things only government can accomplish (larges scale disaster relief, environmental protection, safe workplace standards, aviation safety regulation, standardized economic assistance for the truly indigent etc).

Republicans rail against government, yet when in power cynically use government as a mechanism for shoveling tax money to special interests (all the while pushing more & more tax cuts, pushing deficits into the stratosphere without regard for consequences.)

Prime Example - FEMA, where Bush's first Director, Joseph Allbaugh, whose primary qualification for the appointment was being in charge of a horse racing organization, and upon taking the reigns of FEMA declared it to be an overgrown entitlements program. He went on to severely damage the capacity of FEMA to operate effectively, insulted & disregarded the professionals in charge of operating its key components... and finally left, to lead the effort lobbying FEMA, for Halliburton.

If government is necessary, in an admittedly limited capacity, why not elect the people who actually believe government can & should function effectively? Absence of regulation in health insurance has been a disaster & helped make our health care system both very expensive and left giant gaps in basic healthcare for a growing part of our population.

It can be argued that Reps are no longer true conservatives, but for the dwindling group who put their faith in unrestricted economic darwinism, the idealistic calls for dramatic reductions in governmental spending are eerily similar to equally unrealistic ultra-leftist ideas like having free bicycles strewn about a city so anyone can use them to travel about.

Time for an intelligent dose of realistic solutions, some of which involve government.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Here is the big difference between Dems & Reps on government & fiscal responsiblity: Dems recognize that government has an important - but limited - role to play in society.

Wow.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Dems recognize that government has an important - but limited - role to play in society. There are some things only government can accomplish (larges scale disaster relief, environmental protection, safe workplace standards, aviation safety regulation, standardized economic assistance for the truly indigent etc).

Thanks for the laugh.

If that was true, it would be a wonderful world.