The Cellar - No more government

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - No more government - boo hoo! (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=24858)

The flaw in your argument is that the r's aren't proposing a spending cuts only plan. They honestly believe that spending cuts combined with lower tax rates will lead to increased revenues. You may argue whether lower rates really increase revenue or not and there is support for both side of the argument, but you do at least have to disagreement in accurate terms.

The R's want drastic spending cuts and increased revenue through lower taxes.

The D's want some spending cuts and increased revenue through higher taxes on select groups.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 723603)

If you can cite any objective analysis that revenue increases through lower taxes, I would be happy to look at it.

The Republican plan will cost more than $3 trillion in lost revenue from the tax cuts to a top rate of 25%, according to a CBO analysis and the revenue from these tax cuts is based on an annual economic growth rate of over 6%, not realistic by any objective measure.

And, I am not suggesting that the Democratic plan is the answer. More spending cuts, particularly in defense, are needed, as is real entitlement reform w/o gutting Medicare completely and putting the burden on the back of seniors (or soon to be seniors).

added:

IMO, David Stockman, Reagan's former Budget Director and architect of the supply side trickle down policy that he later admitted was a failure, has it right with his RED:

Quote:

Also on Tuesday,House Budget chief Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin released a proposal to cut $6.2 trillion in government spending during the next ten years. The plan balances the budget by the late 2030s. The government would run deficits until then. Surpluses are forecast to start 2040, and the plan calls for cutting the debt in half, relative to where it is now, by 2050. Does any of that strike you as realistic and possible to achieve?

Congressman Ryan is an earnest young man, but he has delivered up a Lincoln Day Dinner speech, not a serious deficit reduction blueprint.

The litmus test is RED--revenue, entitlements and defense. His plan takes a powder on all three, and falls back on the usual gimmickry of caps, targets, trends and pie-in-the-the sky reforms that are supposed to happen somewhere in the by-and-by.

There is currently $650 billion per year of temporary tax cuts which will expire before 2014 and if allowed to expire would contribute immensely to closing the budget gap. But in the GOP’s budgetary Alice-In-Wonderland, the Ryan plan extends nearly all of these unaffordable tax cuts--even for the billionaire bracket. Likewise, Social Security costs $700 billion per year and needs to be means tested now-so that upper income retirees don’t continue to drain the budget. But the Ryan plan calls for study group.

And the Ryan plan’s defense savings of about $15 billion per year amount to an embarrassing pinprick. We need a huge reduction from the current $800 billion per year defense and security assistance budget, and in a world in which we have no serious industrial enemies, the only reason it doesn’t happen is that neither party is willing to take on the military-industrial complex.

The Ryan-Republican plan also cuts the top individual tax rate from 35% to 25% and cuts the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. Do you believe those moves, if enacted, will create more spending and more jobs?

The last thing this nation needs is a massive food fight over about $1 trillion in tax loopholes and deductions in order to give it all back in rate reductions.

http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/2011...vernment-down/

Compromise is what is needed, which means taking the extremists from both ends out of the discussion.

1) I didn't say I wanted to have that argument, I was simply saying you were sending any possible discussion down the wrong path by incorrectly framing the issue.

2)

Quote:

The Republican plan will cost more than $3 trillion in lost revenue from the tax cuts

This. Cost who? The government? It isn't their money until they take it from us. The taxpayers. So you can flip that statement on its head and say the "Democrat plan will cost taxpayers more than $3 trillion in confiscated wages". Again a ridiculous way to cast the issue in a partisan light, but it's all in how you frame the issue, right?

I could say your number 2 is incorrectly framing the issue as well.

I think Stockman has it right -- RED -- revenue, entitlements, and defense are critical components, along with other discretionary spending cuts that are fiscally based and not ideologically based, to realistically begin the pay down the debt.

The best hope may be with the "Gang of Six" in the Senate, three Ds and three Rs, who are looking at all of the above.

Quote:

"Neither side's got all the answers in this debate," Warner said, according to CNN. "The idea that we can do this on simply one side of the balance sheet – well, it's just a spending problem… no, it's just a taxing problem – isn't the case. If we're not looking at both sides of the balance sheet we should not even start this discussion."

...If the Gang of Six does manage to reach an agreement on a plan, it is likely to address hotly-contested issues like reforming entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and revamping the country's tax code. It is also expected to propose further reductions in domestic discretionary spending.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/budge...ry?id=13359603

They recognize that neither extreme position is the answer.

You can't run up the credit cards and then cry that you don't have enough income. Anyone who claims that the Dems have not exponentially increased spending since 2006 when they took control of the Congress is a tool of the current Obamanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 723603)

The R's drastic spending cuts will negatively effect select groups as well.

That is absolutely true. The framing of the issue/question sets the direction for the discussion.

Regarding the thread title - would anyone really like to live in a country without a government?

Nope. A government is necessary to keep us from anarchy. Even 25 people on a secluded island would form some type of government to make the rules so that all might live in peace. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way we have forgotten that government is best which governs least and moved toward a model where the government is involved in every aspect of our lives and continues to intrude more daily.

imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123 (Post 723953)

we have forgotten that government is best which governs least and moved toward a model where the government is involved in every aspect of our lives and continues to intrude more daily.

imo.

I wouldn't say "forgotten", because some people never believed that government is best which governs least. Therecertainly is a disagreement on the level that government effects our lives. But let's face it, nobody wants government telling us what to do, but we all want government to stop our neighbors from dumping raw sewage on our lawn.

In my humble opinion, of course.

How about dumping raw sewage on their own lawn?

If they're neighbors, it's the same thing.

I think laws preventing my neighbor from dumping sewage on my lawn are reasonable. I don't really think the government needs to get involved in telling him what he is allowed to eat before he introduces his waste into the sewer, provide medical care when he isn't feeling well, or take my money to pay for it.

Of course, you may have a different opinion on how involved the government should be involved in your day to day life.

You would allow emergency rooms to turn away the dying poor?

They can't do that now. Where did Lookout say anything to stimulate such a response?