AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (15 comments)

  1. SeattleSam

    It must be fun being a Democrat. Time after time Republicans fall for the “if you raise taxes, then we’ll reduce spending” ploy. But spending just goes up and up. It’s like being Lucy with the football and watching Charlie Brown fall on his butt every time.

  2. Leslie Schwartz

    Good post I agree, and I would add a fifth point, that the Bush Tax Cuts which have been in place for some time are widely recognized to having contributed to the un-manageability of existing federal budget deficits, and that to resolve the issue both tax revenues and budget cuts will be required.
    Further that the GOP by refusing to raise taxes on the wealthy have put themselves on the wrong side of the issue with the public.
    At one time, a decade ago, the GOP could argue that lower taxes on the wealthy will spur job creation, but history has proved that argument wrong, hence the public is no longer convinced by that argument and showed their will in the recent election.
    The public decided that Republicans were being unreasonable in the fight over raising the budget deficit last year, and this publicly held view about the un-reasonableness of Republicans on the issue of taxes also allowed Obama to run with the promise of raising taxes and win his re-election.

    1. SeattleSam

      If the Bush Tax Cuts “contributed to the un-manageability of existing federal budget deficits”, why did Federal revenues go up every year after their passage? See http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

      The reason the federal deficit increased so much was that SPENDING increased so much.

      1. Leslie Schwartz

        You make a futile point. When will the US government be able to stop spending? Not in any foreseeable future.

        But what the Federal government spends on is important and is in play in our ongoing political life.

        Democrats want less spending on pointless wars started by the lying Bush administration, Romney and GOP candidates promised more continuation of the war spending policies the public on balance does not want.

        Democrats want less spending on every weapons systems dreamt up, particularly systems the Pentagon does not want, while Republicans promised a huge increase in weapons and defense spending.

        Democrats want more money from taxes on people and corporations who can afford it, Republicans advanced the proven fallacy that lower taxes on the wealthy is an aid to job creation.

        Democrats by in large won their elections, while Republicans who expected to win the White House and control of the Senate, lost. Democrats even won seats in the House of Representatives, and all of these wins came at a time when in terms of the cycle, Republicans had fewer vulnerabilities in terms of the seats that were up for election.

        So your side lost, your view that spending is solely the problem and that the entire fix can be done with spending cuts lost.

        1. You make a futile point. When will the US government be able to stop spending? Not in any foreseeable future.

          It will stop spending when the bond market has finally had enough and foreigners will no longer put up with monetization of debt. Fortunately (or unfortunately) for Americans most central banks are playing the same game as the Fed and want to see their currencies destroyed faster than the USD. That may buy some time but in the end savers and the middle class will be destroyed by the spending policies that Democrats and Republicans support.

        2. SeattleSam

          Yes, our side lost. Reality never has polled very well. I used to ask my kids to choose between doing homework or going out for ice cream. Ice Cream won every time.

          1. Yes, our side lost….

            When you have a choice between a Hitler and a Stalin nobody wins. I suspect that Americans are about to find that out.

        3. The “war” spending was never as great as Democrats advertised – and the war is real (Benghazi and Obama’s CYA campaign showed that), not some concoction of Bush.

          Virtually all government spending is on entitlements – all of which are already bankrupt, all of which the Democrats have tenaciously fought for. And the futility of their fight is becoming more obvious.

          The fact remains increasing taxes decreases revenue because it’s NOT government’s money to begin with. When they cut taxes revenue went up – always.

          1. The “war” spending was never as great as Democrats advertised – and the war is real (Benghazi and Obama’s CYA campaign showed that), not some concoction of Bush.

            Given the fact that when we add up the money used by DoD, VA, CIA, DHS, military aid, off balance sheet war funding, etc, you find it adding up to around half of the tax revenues that come in how can you argue that the spending is not as “great as Democrats advertised.” You could argue that Democrats are underestimating the extent of the expenditures but I do not believe that is the argument that you are trying to make.

            Virtually all government spending is on entitlements – all of which are already bankrupt, all of which the Democrats have tenaciously fought for. And the futility of their fight is becoming more obvious.

            But as I pointed out above, that is clearly not the case.

            The fact remains increasing taxes decreases revenue because it’s NOT government’s money to begin with. When they cut taxes revenue went up – always.

            That may be true but there is no way that you can argue to continue wasteful military spending when the US spends more than the next dozen or so nations combined.

  3. Max Planck

    Funny about Erickson- running his mouth helped seal Romney’s fate, and of course, he’s not the least bit apologetic about it.

    Lest we forget, nearly all Red States are “Moocher States.”

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/04/the_red_state_ripoff.html

  4. LOL…The GOP has decided that it has to give in to pressure and forget about principles yet again. But wasn’t that the reason why it lost the election in the first place? Romney was chosen because it wanted someone who could defeat Obama rather than someone who could use logic and reason to lay out a principled stand that would resonate with voters. The way I see it, the GOP stands at a very dangerous place at this moment in history. If it takes a stand it will get slagged by the lefty press and the principled libertarians who will point out that the positions the party has taken are not consistent with fiscal prudence.

    1. Romney in fact did lay out a plan that resonated with voters – it’s why the Mainstream Media admitted he won the debates. The Democrats won the election solely by an unexpected (even by Democrats) slacker vote.

      1. Romney had no cuts in his plan. The spending went up. The ‘cuts’ were only from the baseline budget and had nothing to do with the actual spending. Romney argued for more military spending and more war. That is why the independents went to Obama; the GOP made him look like the peace candidate.

        This is the problem with AEI and most of its readers. They are military Keynesians who talk a good game but turn their back on the principles that they talk about. Both parties deserve to disappear but for some reason the GOP is closer to the abyss than the Democrats. Given the fact that the ancestors of the GOP, the Federalists and the Whigs both went the way of the dodo that would not be as big a surprise as many would think.

  5. Government should let the Rich be tax all thier income instead
    a limit of 110,000 dollars!

  6. Charles peters

    Grover,you are a sick egocentric racist tool.what gives you the ability to see in the future? What is a your salary?Reagan was a for the right wing. he was a sick old man long before his condition became public knowledge.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content