Partisan politics ruinous

  • Follow Letters

The fiscal deliberations among the House of Representatives, the Senate and the president have all the trappings of a televised political melodrama. But unlike a television program that we can turn off, the current federal government saga will continue to exert significant influence on our daily lives.

While the “fiscal cliff” was narrowly avoided this time, the basic economic problems that led up to its edge are far from being resolved. Forty years ago, noted economist Walter Laffer was credited with the notion that tax cuts actually would generate more revenue and eventually pay for themselves by strengthening the economy. While this concept has been mostly debunked, it initiated an intense scrutiny of the critical balance between tax rates and their impact on the economy that has continued to the present.

Considering the delicate condition of our nation’s economy, it is worrisome to watch the course that the current federal budgetary process is taking. What I see is the continued debate about whether our country’s financial problems result from too little taxation (Democrats) or too much spending (Republicans). With a $16 trillion deficit already on the books, thanks to a deep recession, two lengthy wars and record-setting entitlement spending, this is clearly not the time for political posturing. Rather, this is the time for our elected officials to remove their party badges, roll up their sleeves and work together in the same collegial spirit that we saw briefly after 9-11.

If partisan politics continue to trump the best interests of the American people, then in 22 months, the American people can go to the polls and quite justifiably impose involuntary term limits on 435 representatives and 33 senators.

Comments (28) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
carcraft
25315
Points
carcraft 01/09/13 - 06:54 am
10
2
"While the concept has mostly been debunked” Really?

"While the concept has mostly been debunked” Really? Cite a source. When Reagan cut taxes federal revenue actually went up. http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676 during a debate with Hillary Clinton the moderator brought this point up. Obama did not attack the point but purposed raising taxes because of fairness! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4iy2OfScQE so maybe the author of the letter would care to change HIS partisan politics a little and speak the truth! Once again the "blame Bush" card is played. Forget the $800 billion stimulus, forget the expanding welfare benefits, forget the billions in wasted green energy get your buddies rich schemes, it comes down to blame Bush and partisan politics the author decries! Well excuse me, when has Harry Reid produced a budget? When has Obama been honest about spending? Obama said the other day that he cut spending by $1 trillion dollars in 2011. That very right wing, Koch brother conspiracy organization funded by the ultra-right wing under gounds called the "Congressional Budget Office” said Obama lied and spending increased by $300+ billion dollars during that period! So yes let’s keep spending and just blame Bush, that makes it OK. Forget the fact that the deficit increased more under 4 years of Obama than 8 years of Bush...Liberal logic gotta love it, it is like watching cartoons!

wribbs
415
Points
wribbs 01/09/13 - 06:57 am
9
2
Carcraft is exactly right.

Carcraft is exactly right. When I read that tax cuts generating more revenue had been debunked, I was wondering when the writer's flight from Mars had landed.

Whenever you hear someone talk about partisan politics, you can bet it's a democrat saying it because the republicans won't lay down and get out of their way. However, I don't understand why the writer is complaining, because for the most part the republicans have laid down and gotten out of the way.

myfather15
54905
Points
myfather15 01/09/13 - 07:16 am
6
2
Forget the....

Forget the 532 Million going to Planned Parenthood, who claims to be an organization to help people plan their lives. Yet, preforms 330,000+ abortions last year, and referred less than 2500 women to adoption.

Forget about the 430 Million going to Hollywood for them to make movies in the US, which was in this fiscal cliff bill.

Forget about the 220 Million going to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands for them to make and ship RUM to the United States.

Forget about the 330 Million going to the Railroads (One of the richest industries in the world) for them to maintain their tracks. I'm sure these railroads guys are sitting back, smoking a cigar saying "Look at these idiots. We are on top of the world. We make billions and have the taxpayers paying for maintenance on our tracks. Muuuuhhhahaaaaahaaa." Same for Hollywood.

I can't remember the number, but there was a part of the fiscal cliff bill that allotted millions to a Country in Africa for their Citizens to get Master's degrees.

This is the discontent of the American People. I don't believe we have a problem paying a little more taxes. I don't think you will see chaos in the streets because we or especially the rich, have to pay more taxes. But the problem is this kind of spending. How can you justify raising the taxes on the Rich or ANYONE, so that you can continue to filter taxpayers dollars oversees? Are we trying to buy friends? Are our politicians honestly this stupid?

China is the United States largest lender; Yet, we turn around and GIVE them 18.5 million dollars to fund research on how to improve their social and enviromental programs. This is INSANE!! It must stop, but it won't.

Also, I wouldn't hold my breath until the partisan politics stops, if I were you.

myfather15
54905
Points
myfather15 01/09/13 - 07:20 am
8
2
And before someone tells me

And before someone tells me (because I know its coming); Yes I realize to the government, the total amount above is like me going to the store and buying a candy bar. But isn't that part of the problem as well? They've gotten so used to spending hundreds of BILLIONS at at time, spending hundreds of MILLIONS, seems like loose change.

Man, isn't it sooooo easy to spend other peoples money? Money you don't have to earn. It's like drugs and these politicians are definately addicts.

nofanofobama
6809
Points
nofanofobama 01/09/13 - 09:13 am
9
1
cutting taxes

cutting taxes debunked????????carcraft is absolutely right...why does NO ONE talk about waste fraud and duplication in the federal govt...in the 1980's the GRACE COMMISION came up with approx. 300 billion in saving, imagine what it would be now... why is it always we need more money from the producers to run an inefficient, poorly run and over staffed, bloated govt...full of waste and fraud ..it makes absolutely no sense..yet that is all we hear from the dims, more taxes and more taxes..

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 01/09/13 - 09:29 am
2
11
The computer just zapped a

The computer just zapped a long post with revenue figures by year and a whole bunch of other info, so I'll make it short. You can look them up yourself. If you believe in Laffer, we are obviously below the level of optimum taxation because, while we have tax rates lower than in half a century, revenue (in real dollars) has declined. After all a zero tax rate brings in zero revenue, not an infinite amount. Laffer has tried to oversimplify a complex system. If everyone earned the same, paid the same tax rate, spent the same, worked the same number of years, his sketch might work. Like I said earlier, either we've dropped well below the optimum rate of taxation or Laffer is a quack. Take your pick.

RMSHEFF
15895
Points
RMSHEFF 01/09/13 - 10:08 am
6
1
One small correction. The

One small correction. The writer referred to Walter Laffer. It should be Dr. Arthur B. Laffer but his concept was not "debunked"because it is not a concept. This so called "concept" as been tried many time and proven to be true each time it is used. He was the "father" of supply side economics but be was not the first one to prove that lower tax rates bring in more revenue to the federal government. It worked well when Reagan did it as it did when President Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Calvin Coolidge. Each one of the presidents above cut taxes resulting in higher revenues. His theory is looks like a bell shaped curve on a graph. If tax rates are zero the government collects nothing and the same is true for tax rates of 100%, the government would collect nothing because no one word work if everything was taken away in taxes. There is a point in between a zero tax rate and a 100 % tax rate that brings in the most revenue. His historical research tells us that a tax rate of about 18-20% results in the highest percentage of revenue to the government. If tax rates are lower than this range the government suffers from a lack of revenue also if rates exceed about 22 precent range revenue declines and the higher you raise the rates the more revenues drops until you get back to zero revenue at 100% tax rates.

RMSHEFF
15895
Points
RMSHEFF 01/09/13 - 10:26 am
7
1
The idea is quite simple.

The idea is quite simple. Maybe that is why liberals don't get it. Whatever you "tax" you get less of it. What ever you subsidize you get more of it. You can apply this to everything in life. This is why we have more of everything that is bad under Obama and conversely less of everything that is good.

dichotomy
32167
Points
dichotomy 01/09/13 - 11:23 am
7
1
"we are obviously below the

"we are obviously below the level of optimum taxation"

There is an optimum level of federal taxation. Probably somewhere around 15%. The problem is NOT EVERYONE IS PAYING THEIR 15%. In fact, half the country is not paying any federal income tax.

The other part of the equation is spending. There is an optimum level of spending, probably a few percentage points LESS THAN REVENUE. It's a novel concept that most American families are forced to live with their entire lives. Why do we accept politicians who insist on spending more than we can ever possibly hope to pay for?

And right now the people running our government REFUSE to discuss reducing spending. And they refuse to discuss making the OTHER half pay SOME federal income tax.

If you want an optimum tax rate you must optimumly tax EVERYONE. Otherwise, the people who are paying ALL of the federal income tax will ALWAYS insist they are being unfairly taxed (and they are), they will ALWAYS resist you tooth and nail, and will ALWAYS reduce their tax rate every time they are lucky enough to take power in Washington. Depending on where we are in the economic cycle and other extenuating circumstances like inflated housing markets ready to crash at the first hiccup, military conflicts, and technology booms, that lowering of the highest tax rates sometimes creates jobs and an economic boom and sometimes it creats deficits. No economic theory works 100% of the time except one.....spending less than you make. That always works.

Until you create a FAIR and STABLE tax structure where EVERYONE pays SOME federal income tax AND we CUT SPENDING to live within our incoming revenue this fight will continue and these boom-bust cycles will continue.....until we eventually suffer a true, Greek style economic collapse.

I don't know exactly what the percentages would be that would be "fair" but I'm thing something like 5%, 15%, and 25% brackets with 15% on long term capital gains and dividends, and ordinary income rates for short term capital gains. Whatever the rates would be we must get EVERYONE paying some federal tax and we must REDUCE SPENDING to match our revenue. Otherwise the Class Warfare will continue and the ones being forced to pay for EVERYTHING will continue to promote and elect people they feel will try to stop the onslaught against them. They will do the best they can to move their money around and avoid increased taxation and I certainly do not blame them for doing what they can to protect what they have earned. We should change our national symbol from an eagle to a vulcher because our government, and half of our population, seem to be just be gliding around looking to pick the carcass of anybody who EARNS a dollar.

nofanofobama
6809
Points
nofanofobama 01/09/13 - 11:33 am
7
1
tech.perhaps tax dollars in

tech.perhaps tax dollars in real dollars is down because unemployment is really at 12-14 percent and not the phony 7.8 % the obumlers put out. and under employment is over 20 percent..and hundred of thousands just quit looking for work..the obumler economic miracle has devestaed revenue coming in and expanded the money going out.

RMSHEFF
15895
Points
RMSHEFF 01/09/13 - 11:37 am
4
0
Tax policy

Dichotomy, I agree with most of your post. I would only add that any tax system should be geared to one simple goal and that is to collect the necessary revenue to pay for the government we have and no more. Our current tax system is a complete disaster and must be replace and not reformed. Over the last 50+ years it has evolved into a system to reward those that are in power and punish those not liked by those in power. As I said it should have only one purpose, to raise enough to run the government. I am in favor of replacing it with either a flat tax or fair tax. Anything is better than what we have now and the cost compliance is in the billions.

RMSHEFF
15895
Points
RMSHEFF 01/09/13 - 11:44 am
2
1
nofanofobama

yep, An economy growing at 1.4% will not generate increased revenue and government spending is way up. Is anyone surprised that the deficits are 16.4 trillion and growing. The deficit problem can only be solved through growth of at least 5% combined with federal spending < than 20%. Obama know this therefore his goal has nothing to do with bring America back to a healthy economy. His plans are much more "sinister" as you may agree.

Steve62351
66
Points
Steve62351 01/09/13 - 01:09 pm
2
0
Annual Deficit versus Cumulative National Debt and Reality

The US federal government has spent more than it has taken in EVERY YEAR since 1958, each year had a net deficit, which is called an "annual deficit". The "National Debt" is the accumulation of all years there was an annual deficit since 1790. The exact dollar amount of each year's deficit from 1790 until now and the resulting mounting, cumulative National Debt are provided free by the US Department of the Treasury in their monthly financial reports, which are available on-line at: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm The reality is that since 1958, every Democrat and Republican controlled Congress and every Democrat and Republican presidential administration has spent more than it took in. Thus since 1958, recorded US Department of the Treasury documents prove that there is no partisan politics regarding federal spending: Democrats and Republicans believe in, support, and vote for annual deficits and a limitless National Debt. Which any rational person knows can't continue indefinitely without eventually creating horrendous inflation and financial collapse of the country. History provides numerous examples where that outcome occurred in several countries. The US does not have some "special" immunity to financial distress and shall suffer the same fate as others if annual deficits continue indefinitely. Not too complicated really. We elect leaders who want to be re-elected, so they spend money to win our favor and we do re-elect them.

Willow Bailey
20580
Points
Willow Bailey 01/09/13 - 02:42 pm
5
2
Could we have one example

Could we have one example where socialism has worked?

RMSHEFF
15895
Points
RMSHEFF 01/09/13 - 03:54 pm
1
1
Steve62351

Exactly, republicans have talked the talk, but not walked the walk. I could make a case for them being less of a big spender than democrats but both are guilty. At least the republican overspend in an area the federal government has a responsibility in, national defense. We are now indeed at the "end of the road" on spending and I for one, will support anyone that seeks to make real and substantial cuts in spending. It must happen and happen soon.

burninater
9412
Points
burninater 01/09/13 - 06:30 pm
1
3
Revenues increased following

Revenues increased following the Reagan tax cuts.

I am sure you are all well-aware, of course, that revenues have increased EVERY decade since the Depression.

I am sure you are also aware that the LOWEST rates of increase for any given decade since the Depression occur AFTER the Reagan tax cuts.

Y'all knew that, right? Your Dear Leaders told you The Rest Of The Story, right?

http://www.econdataus.com/taxcuts.html

Willow Bailey
20580
Points
Willow Bailey 01/09/13 - 06:35 pm
3
2
Why can't all of them just

Why can't all of them just stop throwing money away and especially sending it out of this country?

Barack Huesein Obama said his goal was to redistribute the wealth of this country. And the silly voters thought he meant redistribute money to them.

The bottom line is, our entire government should be overthrown. But then again, I think it already has been. The mission of the CIC, Barack Hussein Obama is to bankrupt this country.

You who elected him twice, watch and see. You haven't seen anything yet.

burninater
9412
Points
burninater 01/09/13 - 06:49 pm
0
2
No offense Willow, but pretty

No offense Willow, but pretty much the only people who thought Obama planned to redistribute wealth to voters were voters on the Right. It was just one more thing to put in the secret Muslim/foreign birth looney bin ...

RMSHEFF
15895
Points
RMSHEFF 01/09/13 - 07:07 pm
2
0
Burninater is a proud

Burninater is a proud Marxist.

RMSHEFF
15895
Points
RMSHEFF 01/09/13 - 07:31 pm
2
0
Burninator

Economics 101 (on taxes and revenue) Tax cuts take 2-3 years to reach a peak of revenue increases. This is often enough time to allow the next president to reap the benefits. As in the case in the 70's when Carter gave us double digit inflation more dollars equal less dollars. When Obama leaves office it could take years for the economy to recover and this will make the next president look bad. Don't you remember, Obama is still blaming Bush for his bad economy even after 4 years. You will be tested on the following data:

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutfacts.htm

carcraft
25315
Points
carcraft 01/09/13 - 07:41 pm
2
0
Obama seems to be doing

Obama seems to be doing pretty good at spreading the wealth. The number of people on welfare has increased significantly and the taxes to pay for those increases are rising. Am I missing somthing?

Willow Bailey
20580
Points
Willow Bailey 01/09/13 - 07:45 pm
2
1
Thanks, burn, none taken.

Thanks, burn, none taken. But I personally met a good many of them and they were on the left, waiting for their checks to come in so they could make a serious major purchase.

Regardless, though, left or right....our money is leaving this country faster than we can say....Obama.

We should all certainly be in agreement that the laws of economics say more can't go out than comes in & you can't rob Peter to pay Paul.

Have you ever been to Disney? Before you leave, Mickey turns you upside down and shakes out your pockets.

burninater
9412
Points
burninater 01/09/13 - 10:01 pm
0
0
Burninater is a proud

Burninater is a proud Marxist.
-------
A simple way to declare yourself non-credible is to claim a supporter of the Keynesian policy of the current administration to be a Marxist.

This type of chronic histrionic overreaction may be the single greatest contributor to the general electorate's perception that the far Right is irrational and ill-informed.

Keep up the good work.

RMSHEFF
15895
Points
RMSHEFF 01/09/13 - 10:05 pm
0
0
Ok... Proud

Ok... Proud Redistributionist....sounds a little better.

burninater
9412
Points
burninater 01/09/13 - 10:26 pm
0
0
Sheff, only 6 years of the

Sheff, only 6 years of the past century have seen U.S. marginal tax rates lower than the current rates. For 94 years of what is called the American Century, rates were HIGHER.

So no, even calling them Redistributionist strikes anyone with any knowledge of our country's history as irrational and ill-informed.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 01/10/13 - 06:15 am
0
2
Steve62351: 1958 may have

Steve62351: 1958 may have been the last time the US reduced its debt, however, the country has been in debt since 1835.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs