National Debt and GOP Candidates

[Embar Angylwrath]

How about we start with... not paying them to not work? How about we start with... not refunding income tax people never paid?

On the other side of the coin, how about we start with.. loophole elimination? Subsidies (this includes government investment in new technology as well as tax breaks for existing ones... Solyndra and Exxon alike).

Then we can move on to other realities. We live longer and work longer.. raise the fucking retirement age. We don't retire at 62 and die at 68 anymore. We die at 88.

We don't need our bloated military because frankly, its not effective anymore. Tanks and bombers are passe. Hackers and drones can most of the work done.

Hell, if we adjust for the realities of defense and entitlements, we can solve the national debt AND cut taxes.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Oh... one more thing.

Which would you rather spend a tax dollar on? A TSA fondler or a Marine (or for you communists out there, tax credits when someone hasn't paid tax)?

Lets get our priorities in order, shall we?

[Torakus]

Oh... one more thing.

Which would you rather spend a tax dollar on? A TSA fondler or a Marine (or for you communists out there, tax credits when someone hasn't paid tax)?

Lets get our priorities in order, shall we?

Well I think both are equally important, but I am obviously biased. I'm not a fondler but I do work for TSA.

[Ddrak]

@Embar:

"not paying them to not work?" Not sure what you're really suggesting here. Eliminate unemployment benefits, institute a work-for-benefits scheme, or just reduce benefits?

"not refunding income tax people never paid?" Only happens with EITC and CTC - both of which just use the tax system as a distribution mechanism. You could just as easily put them as a direct payment outside the tax system if the notion offends you so much? I don't believe putting an arbitrary net across government assistance that uses an existing payment system rather than creating a new one is particularly useful - I'd go as far as to suggest MORE assistance programs should use the IRS to distribute money.

"loophole elimination" Always a good one, but calling for elimination of government investment is a little crazy. I don't mind rational subsidies either, but they should be specific and time limited. I think the idea of reducing tax deductions as a general rule is a good one though.

"retirement age" If you're already eliminating paying people to not work then what does it even matter? Just eliminate retirement altogether and let the market sort it out?

"military" I think a lot can be done here, but first the US needs to decide what its role in the world actually is now that it's a sole superpower and then adjust its military to reflect that.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Extending unemployment benefits is specifically what I was talking about. But I guess it doesn't matter, because a lot of people have figured out that they just need to claim a mental disability, and then the checks keep rolling in forever.

As to the tax, I'm talking about how someone who pays no income tax gets a tax refund, and you're correct, its because of some tax credits. And don't you find it unfair that the government subsidizes a specific household unit.. one with children?

Sorry.. I disagree wholeheartedly that government should be direct investors in any marketed company. It turns that portion of industry political, and it puts the government in a "pick the winner" seat. Bad news for a semi-free market.

Retirement age... I wasn't clear on that. I meant raising the age when people can collect social security. I also favor a means test as well.

[Lurker]

bangforbuck.jpg

[Kulaf]

I'd still rather see the money go to infrastructure. You get the same economic effect and your end up with a tangible beneift in the form of a new highway, bridge, etc. It is important to note also that he is speaking of a "temporary" increase in UI benefits. I think we have gone a bit past that point right now.

[Ddrak]

I believe a permanent unemployment benefit makes sense, which should be both means tested, have a mandatory work-for-benefit component that isn't so onerous that it prevents people seeking proper work and be partially offered in vouchers rather than cash. Disability is a little tougher, but you could roll it into unemployment with appropriate guards.

I don't find it any more unfair that the government subsidizes children than they subsidize other elements in society. Children are probably a better investment than most so it comes down to what the government is trying to encourage in its social program.

Governments can do tough R&D much more effectively than private industry because the risk/reward equation is different for a government (reward includes social benefit). I do think any government funded R&D should be public domain, or have very limited exclusive terms (like 1 year). Yes, investment in private industry is problematic for governments but nothing that can't be trivially fixed by mandatory openness in government.

Means tested public pensions/social security are fine with me. Becomes a bit of a political football though - lots of votes in old people.

Dd

[Partha]

I'd still rather see the money go to infrastructure. You get the same economic effect and your end up with a tangible beneift in the form of a new highway, bridge, etc. It is important to note also that he is speaking of a "temporary" increase in UI benefits. I think we have gone a bit past that point right now.

If we weren't in a deeply in debt economy, I'd agree with you. But right now, the key driver to everything is debt. In order for the government to pay off that debt, they have to have more money - you cannot starve the beast without complete civil collapse.

That means a tax increase, which the GOP will never accede to. We built the 'American Dream' of the '50's and early '60's on the backs of a 90% marginal tax rate, you're not getting back there while maintaining a top tax rate of 35%. I wish the GOP would be honest and say 'Look, the good times are done for everyone but a few lucky bastards, and they're never coming back under us. The best you can hope is that we don't fuck it up any more than we have already and we have a soft fall into second-world status.'

[Kulaf]

I'm not exactly sure what your point is. I didn't mention anything about taxes, merely where I would rather see stimulus money go.

[Lurker]

Partha's post is still valid even if it was aimed at the wrong person.

And in case anyone missed it, Romney released a new tax plan that is much, much worse than his original awful plan.

If you think the country doesn't have enough debt and the only thing wrong with our economy is that the wealthy don't have enough money... vote Republican.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I didn't see anything in Partha's post that addressed the spending side of the equation. Don't spend as much, you won't need as much money.

Attack entitlement spending, attack defense spending. Problem solved.

[Lurker]

Five months ago you agreed that any workable solution required spending cuts and additional revenues. Anyone who didn't see that just didn't "get it."

Democrats agreed to spending cuts and ... surprise, surprise... Republicans not only didn't agree to any net increase in revenue, they put forth a deficit solution that was guaranteed to make the deficit worse. Your response to Republican proposals that drastically increased the deficit was a big yawn. You had "no feeling at all".

And your response to the Republican Presidential candidates putting forth proposals that drastically increase the deficit is basically the same. You fall back on platitudes and nonsense knowing full well your party has no desire or ability to cut enough spending because the American public doesn't want massive cuts in popular programs.

[Partha]

I didn't see anything in Partha's post that addressed the spending side of the equation. Don't spend as much, you won't need as much money.

Attack entitlement spending, attack defense spending. Problem solved.

Hardly. To claim so is basically going 'HURHURHURHUR' and pretending it's economics. Which is par for you, I'll admit.

As far as spending goes...Keynesian economics works. The banks still aren't lending, therefore the government is the lender of last resort. Money poured into unemployment/foodstamps/infrastructure gives positive economic feedback, for reasons you've managed to miss all those years. Therefore, if you want to increase future revenue, you're going to have to deficit spend AND increase taxes....say, to the level the Germans do, which gives them enough money to fund a lot more social welfare while being able to loan money to the likes of Greece.

Of course, I agree on defense cuts, but that will never happen either, so you'd best stick with increasing revenue.