PDA

View Full Version : Evidence Of McCains Absurd Economics



Gayle in MD
05-12-2008, 08:22 AM
Jared Bernstein

The Most Important Piece of Paper in America
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jared-bernstein/the-most-important-piece_b_101237.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read More: Doug Holtz-Eakin, John McCain, John McCain Tax Plan, Tax Policy Center,

I hold in my hand one of the most important pieces of paper in America: Table T08-0071, an analysis of candidate John McCain's tax plan.

OK, it's not really in my hand because I'm typing, but I'm looking at it carefully, and you should too. It is a table constructed by the Tax Policy Center's steely-eyed tax analysts, and it reveals nothing less than McCain's secret plan to diminish the US government beyond recognition. If he gets his way, conservatives will finally be able to say they've achieved the goal set out by Grover Norquist: to get government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

The numbers in the table show the revenue loss to the Federal government from McCain's proposed tax cuts. In the far right corner is the 10-year total: -$5.7 trillion.

People deride the Republican candidate as "McSame," implying a continuation of Bushonomics as well as the president's foreign policy. But from the perspective of domestic policy, it's much worse. Sure, McCain extends the Bush tax cuts but that's the least of it. At $1.7 trillion they amount to less than a third of the damage.

Note also that the big ticket tax cuts-eliminating the alternative minimum tax and lowering the corporate tax-both follow on another Bush tradition of exacerbating market-driven (i.e., pre-tax) inequalities by cutting high-end taxes the most.

As I stresshere , McCain's plans to pay for these tax cuts amount to filling a crater with a teaspoon of sand. Earmarks won't get you there, so he'll have to go after discretionary spending. In fact, he's already suggesting a freeze in such spending, excluding defense, of course. Sound inoffensive until you consider that we're talking about kids' health care, education, child care, training for displaced workers, environmental and labor protections, and dozens more programs that lots of people actually need and care about.

Plus, he can't fill the hole he's dug with cuts in these programs either, which leads you to the inevitable punch line of all this: his target is the entitlements, Social Security and Medicare. Those programs have always been the big enchiladas for the Norquist shock troops and they've never recovered from their Social Security privatization defeat. Well, they're back, incognito.

McCain's top economist, a number cruncher of great integrity named Doug Holtz-Eakin, responds to the Tax Policy's analysis here, and he makes a good point or two, especially regarding the way they score the AMT, but his counterpoints amount to little more than quibbles. In fact, one can't help wonder if Doug, who used to inveigh against supply-side nonsense, has been drawn to the economic dark side. When recently asked about the extent to which these numbers fail to add up, his response was: "I think what [critics] ought to do is remember that the proposals are going to engender economic growth, which is the best thing you can do for near-term budget improvement." That's pure hand waving of the type with which the old Holtz-Eakin had no patience.

This story has yet to catch the fire it should, and hopefully will, once the D's get focused on McCain and his dim vision of government. But the point born of these numbers is as simple as it is compelling:

For seven long years, we've tried entrusting our government to those who discredit it, defund it, and fundamentally disbelieve in its role, except when they seek a lucrative contract or a bailout. We gone down the road-and it is a crumbling road, with potholes and failing bridges -- where the solution to every problem is a tax cut, where critical agencies are staffed with cronies at best and opposition lobbyists at worst, where secrecy trumps transparency and cynicism rules, where budget resources are never available for expanding children's health care, but always there for war.

Table T08-0071 is a road map to taking us far, far deeper into this morass. We must not go there.

LWW
05-12-2008, 08:40 AM
And small govt is bad why?

Do you actually have thoughts on this, or is this just another in a long line of post and runs?

LWW

pooltchr
05-12-2008, 05:54 PM
For 7 long years we have heard you complain how much money Bush has been spending. Now along comes another candidate who actually thinks that cutting down the size of government, as well as giving taxPAYERS some much needed relief, and you don't like that either. You just can't stand it when someone other than your girl has an idea, can you? Hillary wants to have the big oil companies give you about $30 this summer. I suppose that's the solution to the problems our economy is facing?

You are becoming a joke.
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-12-2008, 06:59 PM
"For seven long years, we've tried entrusting our government to those who discredit it, defund it, and fundamentally disbelieve in its role, except when they seek a lucrative contract or a bailout. We gone down the road-and it is a crumbling road, with potholes and failing bridges -- where the solution to every problem is a tax cut, where critical agencies are staffed with cronies at best and opposition lobbyists at worst, where secrecy trumps transparency and cynicism rules, where budget resources are never available for expanding children's health care, but always there for war."

McCain has a vast number of issues, from his mental stability, to his flip flipping, to his tax cuts. The joke is that there are people who completely ignore all of that, and bash others for being concerned about it, while yapping about shrinking government, and voting for the party that never shrinks it, and always leaves us in a recession, and with huge debts, and ignoring all the waste and corruption we have to put up with when Republicans are running the show, this last bunch, breaking all records for building up national debt.

The joke, to me atleast, is when someone says they are against irrational spending, big government, waste and corruption, and then they support the candidate and party which is famouse for both, and whose tax structure, and voting record, insures more of it.

I read his plan, and find it severely lacking.

Gayle in Md.

eb_in_nc
05-13-2008, 07:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For 7 long years we have heard you complain how much money Bush has been spending. Now along comes another candidate who actually thinks that cutting down the size of government, as well as giving taxPAYERS some much needed relief, and you don't like that either. You just can't stand it when someone other than your girl has an idea, can you? Hillary wants to have the big oil companies give you about $30 this summer. I suppose that's the solution to the problems our economy is facing?

You are becoming a joke.
Steve </div></div>

Touche Steve. I've not been in this forum for 7 years, and I can only imagine how painful that must have been for all of you..
Eric B

LWW
05-13-2008, 08:27 AM
The left here can answer every question in just 2 words.

B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!

I don't know why they insist on wasting bandwidth.

LWW

Gayle in MD
05-13-2008, 01:17 PM
Yes, being reminded of the facts has always been painful for Republicans. The fact is they have borrowed this country into a hole, and they don't care about leaving the bill to their kids and grand kids to plow out of it, as long as THEY, the ones who voted for this bunch of highway robbers in the Bush Administration, don't have to pay more taxes, although they were responsible for electing the biggest spenders this country has ever witnessed.

Some people expect to live in the greatest country in the world, without paying enough taxes to avoid going down the hole that every Republican Administration digs for the rest of us. No wonder the Democrats have millions more people voting Democratic, than the Republicans, after what we've been put through, with all their cutting taxes, waging un-necessary wars and occupations, and borrowing us into the pit! More borrowed debt, than all previous administrations combined.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

pooltchr
05-13-2008, 07:32 PM
You can rant and rave all you want, but you STILL DON'T GET IT!!! We can do very well with tax cuts, but only if we cut back SPENDING. That means getting rid of all the fat in the government. Tax cuts help the economy. Tax increases just lead to more government spending. The idea is that if we force tax cuts, and make Washington live within their means, we would all be better off. The federal government has grown so big and it's just rolling like a snowball. More government programs means the government needs more money. The only place they can get money is from taxes.

If you took a pay cut, and had all your credit cards cut up, you would learn to live on less. That is all we are trying to get out of Washington. No intelligent person thinks we shouldn't pay taxes. Most intelligent people understand that as the tax rate gets higher, the only thing the government is going to do is find more ways to spend more money!

Again, it's very simple...cut taxes and cut the size of the federal government.

I probably just wasted 3 minutes of my life trying once again to educate you, but I still have hope that one day you will wake up.
Steve

Deeman3
05-14-2008, 07:27 AM
Steve,

It is a little like, no a lot like, government seizing your assets. After all, it used to be our money.

No one is saying, as you said, we don't need to pay taxes. It is terrible that they don't even pretent to want to reduce government size anymore. Pork and waste! The change they want is more of the same. Part of the Clinton/Bush dynasty I guess.

eg8r
05-14-2008, 07:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can rant and rave all you want, but you STILL DON'T GET IT!!! We can do very well with tax cuts, but only if we cut back SPENDING. That means getting rid of all the fat in the government. </div></div> You mean we would need to get rid of Pelosi's pork in the recent farm bill?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-14-2008, 11:04 AM
NO, YOU DON"T GET IT! HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO PAY DOWN NINE TRILLION DOLLARS OF DEBT THAT GEORGE BUSH AND THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP ARE LARGELY RESPONSIBLE FOR?

Much of this debt has come about through waste, and the Republican efforts when they were in control, to block oversight, and give the corporate theiving contractors carte blanche on stealing and war profiteering.

Reagan left the presidency with huge inflation and deficits. Nixon did the same thing, and Ford paid the price. Bush 1 atleast had the sense to understand that you can't cut taxes, and spend your ass off on wars and defense, without running up deficits, and borrowing your ass off, which cost us accumulating interest. Bush 1 paid the price for Ronald Reagan's tax cuts.

We now have Bush 2, who has borrowed more money than all previous administrations, combined! Only this time, we owe a great deal of our debt to a communist country.

Spending more than you take in is exactly what I have condemned for these last seven years. Prosecuting a very expensive war, and providing tax cuts at the same time, and borrowing money to cover your ass, is not my idea of responsible economic policies.
Just as blaming the whole thing on Democrats, is a joke, pointing to Republicans as being fiscally responsible is a form of denial that the rest of ths country would barf over. It's also the reason why Bush's approval numbers are down to 28%.

You never look at the debt in your statements! It is about more than spending money to run the country. This war is bankrupting us.


Gayle in Md.

LWW
05-14-2008, 11:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!

Gayle in Md. </div></div>
Do you ever have anything else?

Have you ever read the constitution?

Are you aware that all spending originates in congress?

Why don't you bemoan the money pissed away in set asides?

Where is your righteous indignation over your beloved democrats who have issued our recent budgets?

LWW

Bobbyrx
05-14-2008, 12:04 PM
The government has seen record high revenues under Bush and one reason for this has been the tax cuts. If we have record high revenues why do we need to increase taxes? We need to cut spending, which everyone on here seems to agree that Bush has not done, nor the Reb or Dem controlled Congress

Gayle in MD
05-14-2008, 12:16 PM
Record high revenues, WITH record high debt, plus interest, accumulating daily.

How do you suppose we're going to pay down all the debt, nine trillion dollars, and growing as we write, a great deal of it to a communist country?

Don't tell me about revenues, without addressing debt.

McCain's economic plans have been called adolecent by economists. Are YOU an econmist?

I didn't think so.

Go back into your fantasyland. You'll find plenty of right wing nuts there to play with. They don't understand the relationshipe between revenues, that are false, due to the growing debt, either.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
05-14-2008, 02:22 PM
So I guess you are an economist, so tell us ignorant red staters just how big of a tax increase we need and how that big ol' tax increase will help the economy. Did I mention anything about McCain in my post or his economic plans. "I didn't think so"

Gayle in MD
05-14-2008, 02:27 PM
As I stated, don't attempt to discuss the subject of the economy, taxes, or revenues, without addressing the nine trillion dollars of debt that George Bush and the Republicans have created.

FYI, this thread is about McCain's adolecent economic ideas.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For seven long years, we've tried entrusting our government to those who discredit it, defund it, and fundamentally disbelieve in its role, except when they seek a lucrative contract or a bailout. We gone down the road-and it is a crumbling road, with potholes and failing bridges -- where the solution to every problem is a tax cut, where critical agencies are staffed with cronies at best and opposition lobbyists at worst, where secrecy trumps transparency and cynicism rules, where budget resources are never available for expanding children's health care, but always there for war.

Table T08-0071 is a road map to taking us far, far deeper into this morass. We must not go there.

Top
</div></div>

Bobbyrx
05-14-2008, 05:32 PM
[quote=Gayle in MD]As I stated, don't attempt to discuss the subject of the economy, taxes, or revenues, without addressing the nine trillion dollars of debt that George Bush and the Republicans have created


Yes Ma'am

LWW
05-16-2008, 04:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So I guess you are an economist, so tell us ignorant red staters just how big of a tax increase we need and how that big ol' tax increase will help the economy. Did I mention anything about McCain in my post or his economic plans. "I didn't think so" </div></div>
It is proven it will decrease revenue and increase the deficit ... yet it punishes the creation of wealth as all good Leninists are sworn to do.

The far left has no clue how budgets work ... and why hasn't our new congress done something to stop the excessive spending?

Oh, that's right ... it's just manure they use to fertilize the sheeple's brains.

LWW