Debt Super Committee


So, the bi-partisian debt committee Has admitted to failure; they are unable to reach an agreement on the gap they were to address. A couple of things:

1. There is no one that seriously thinks we have a revenue problem. If they say that they are died in the wool Statists or they are lying.

2. The committee was never really considering realm cuts to spending. They were talking about cutting the amount they were gonna increase spending. Never, ever, was the idea to spend less next year than this year.

3. Failure to reach an agreement isn’t the end of the world; we still get 1 trillion in cuts.

4. Republicans running around claiming they can’t cut the Pentagon’s budget are acting like Democrats.

5. With that said, defense spending IS called for in the constitution. Food stamps and section 8 are not.

Advertisements
5 comments
  1. If you have deficits you either increase revenue or decrease spending. Politically ONLY a mix of both will ever get serious traction, our political system runs on compromise. Moreover, the US has the lowest tax levels in the industrialized world (half of Sweden’s – total taxes as a ratio of GDP). Taxes are lower than ever before and clearly no one can say that only the middle class and poor (and kids in schools, etc.) should suffer in this crisis while the wealthy should pay nothing. That kind of thinking can provoke a revolution, it’s like 1780s France! If you want class warfare, refusal to have the wealthy pay any part of getting out of this crisis, even though they have benefited the most from our system, is sure to create it! Already the political winds are tilting that way.

    I can agree with most of the rest, though the constitution allows for all kinds of spending even if it isn’t mentioned (and arguably much of our military budget is not directly related to defense of the homeland.).

    • pino said:

      no one can say that only the middle class and poor (and kids in schools, etc.) should suffer in this crisis

      Those people currently don’t bear any burden as it relates to the reducing the deficit.

      and arguably much of our military budget is not directly related to defense of the homeland.

      Here I agree with ya; we spend far FAR too much defending other nations.

  2. Sure they do — cuts hit the poor and middle class hardest, and already are resulting in decreased funding to schools, heating oil support (the feds are cutting that to Maine which will hurt a lot of families) and a host of things. I think cuts and reform to entitlements will be easier for a lot of people to stomach if they don’t think the wealthiest are able to sacrifice nothing despite the fact they’ve benefited so much by the stable system, infrastructure and legal protections that the state provides. Once we have the budget balanced and are en route to making debt less of a crisis, we can talk about tax cuts again. During a crisis I don’t think anyone is immune from having to make some sacrifice.

    • pino said:

      Sure they do — cuts hit the poor and middle class hardest, and already are resulting in decreased funding to schools, heating oil support (the feds are cutting that to Maine which will hurt a lot of families) and a host of things.

      Hmmm…not sure I buy into that argument. I have a hard time accepting the fact that a person gets less free stuff that I work for qualifies as sacrificing.

  3. You look at this in a way I think is misguided. You seem to think that the results of the market are results that people both deserve and is good for society. I believe that the market is a very good, useful mechanism, but that it’s outcomes often over-reward some people and others work very hard and do not get a decent wage. Also, as I’ve noted, schools that are poor have students who under perform on tests, making class differences continue. The role of government is not to equalize outcomes but to provide important help to assure equal opportunity and make sure people pay their fair share into a system that allows prosperity.

    Every wealthy person benefits immensely from the stable system created. They benefit more than people who work hard but are not wealthy. Therefore asking them to pay their fair share is not wrong; in fact, they have benefited so much more than others they should pay more, think of it as a fee to support a system that allows them wealth. Bottom line: the poor don’t get the same kind of lifestyle the wealthy get. While wealthy folk can buy what they want without thinking too much about the cost, have luxuries, travel, take vacations, provide the best education for their children, the poor and middle class often struggle over basic bills. They get some benefits from the government, but if those are cut they struggle more. Meanwhile the wealthy, who have benefited greatly from our system, pay low taxes and don’t have to sacrifice to get the country out of its mess. That’s blatantly wrong, and people should get angry about it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: