It's the Spending, Stupid!

I think we can make social security and medicare help those who need it - the middle class and upper middle class and the poor and increase the amount of income taxed for those who don't need either program - this would change the nature of both programs which FDR called entitlements meaning all are entitled to programs they pay for - contribute to - but if we must then let those who don't need either one pay more - to really save on medicare we need a more central health care program - national etc.

california people dug themselves in to worst economic losses of any state from where they started from by having population decide things. :-( most folks don't understand economy and finance enough to do this and they have work of their own they need to focus on. bad idea. this post shows how little many understand this. :-(

we would definitely be less likely to go to war if the war had to be paid for. the last wars have not been including vietnam. recent history shows that yes, if tax increases were required to be included in any congressional budget paying for a war or declaring war - there would absolutely be fewer wars. I am not sure about other areas of the budget but not that one jack is correct for sure.

you have to look at who has benefited $ wise from money of govt. by in large it is the top 1-2% who get the largest hand outs from federal govt and from state govt. so yes - those that pay taxes are those that get that money. and so in that sense jack is correct. I am not sure that big oil who gets a huge subsidy would be against increased taxation as they gain more than they pay by a large amount. The same goes for corps that paid 0 in taxes. also the multibillionaires paying only at cap gains rate will not mind tax increases. all in all it is mainly the middle that pays the most and gets the least - the middle in the north east - as the south gets more from fed govt than they pay in. I think jacks plan is ideal for war. we would

Moon you DO know that the debt limit passage is passage to pay for money already spent - don't you? you do not change spending by defaulting on a loan. not raising the debt limit just tells the world we took your money spent it and now we are not going to pay you back - you can't do that unless you want to end your own economy - AFTER you borrow money you pretty much have to pay it back. - you should at least understand what things are that you comment on.

And your reply was just as imbecilic. The spectre of having to raise taxes has never in history provided a fiscal brake of any kind. This is the overwhelming consensus of economists and historians, particularl, as it happens, with regard to the British Empire. The same consensus, as it happens, places the increased prosperity of workers (including wroking conditions and the end of child labor) entirely on the private sector. Governmnet spending has never aided the economy in any way.

As I replied elsewhere, this is simply untrue. The spectre of having to raise taxes is an inherent fiscal brake on spending and has happened repeatedly. In fact, most government projects which have been rejected as fiscally unsound tend to fit that category.

And in the process we would have destroyed the Republican nature of the nation.

I suggest your proposal is far more problematic than mine.

The two best ways to curtail problematic spending are significant cuts in defense spending and a cap on medicare treatments for terminally ill patients. We spend over 33% of our medicare budget keeping uncle Jack alive from Christmas to teh 4th of July.

"None of you have the brains god gave a walnut. "

Pot. Kettle. Black. -- Make the all too obvious connection.

Taxation has never in history (and flatly can never do so) been a force to limit spending. You are proceeding from the universally disproved notion that there is a political linkage between taxes and spending.

Jack, taxes are not an inherent impediment as long as there is borrowing or inflation.

Likewise, he didn't suggest you were being illogical, he claimed it, and supported it with evidence. Whining about it, instead of making a counter-argument, means you were wrong.

I recommend Sowell's book "Basic Economics - A Citizen's Guide To The Economy" to start learning how to be logical when discussing economic policy. Make it a Christmas Gift for yourself!

There are two ways to dramatically decrease spending;

1) Across-the-board cuts in subsidies. Nobody wants to go first, but everyone knows its a problem, so share the cut.

2) Give tax-payers the option to decide where their dollars will be spent; if each person got to name the agency that receives their cash, spending would have to decrease because most agencies (which are useless and serve nobody but the agents) would be unfunded.

There are 1700 agencies in the federal government. Too many people would pick "defense" or "medicaid" or "NASA" for the thousands of useless agencies to survive.

Take the spending decisions out of the hands of congress and put in directly into the hands of the people, and spending will come down.

DOnt' toss out this kind of mish mash and suggest I am being illogical. We are talking about the effect on government spending. In a democracy, taxes place an inherent roadblock in teh way of spending if the spenders are forced to raise taxes to fund the spending. If they can just borrow it, then the sky is the limit.

MoonYogert,

The debt ceiling is an artifical, political tool. Its not an economic force and as such it is doomed to fail. Tell me this: how well has it worked so far?

Bad idea to insult the intelligence of others while you're committing obvious logical errors.

Taxing is a force that works against spending BY THOSE BEING TAXED.

Raising taxes will reduce the spending OF THE TAXPAYERS.

You're trying to say that taxing will work against spending by those RECEIVING THE REVENUE.

Do you see a difference???

The economic force that works against it is the debt ceiling. If you advocate not borrowing then you have a point but raising taxes alone is no plan worth entertaining. Even a walnut brain knows that.

None of you have the brains god gave a walnut.

IF you want to cut spending you have to identify an economic force that will work against spending. The only force that can do that is taxes. All the other efforts have been political, which is why they failed.

Clearly, he is.