Quote:
Originally Posted by lookout123
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.
|
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.