Con_Alma;840539 wrote:Yes, I'm convinced the administration wants a longer deal so that it will push the "next debt level debate" past the election. I think it's too late, however. The heightened sense of urgency now realized by the U.S. citizen will make this an election issue no matter the deal that is made.

While I agree, I think the average citizen is still not remotely close to coming to grips with paying higher taxes, personally. They are all for the govt eliminating someone else's handout, or the govt funding with someone else's money, but I don't see much willingness for anyone to personally hand-over their own wallet. And that's why this won't get fixed.

If the govt implements a VAT (which truly is a scary prospect on multiple levels) on nearly EVERYTHING (as it must be), you'll see a lot more pushback from Joe the Plumber when he actually has to pay a higher VAT to fund the next shiny new gubmit entitlement. It's disgusting, absolutely disgusting, how many Americans have bought into this fallacy that the rich can and should fund nearly unlimited govt handouts.

I'm an average citizen and I haven't come to grips with it. When reality forces people to do things they don't like we tend to adapt. We are resilient people.

gut;839986 wrote:And, of course, why do Dems want to raise the debt ceiling enough to ensure it won't happen again until 2013? So they can play the same game to cram down more taxes on the rich.

Besides the fact that I think there is a fairly wide range of taxes that will more or less yield the same revenue (back to the whole % of GDP being consistent despite huge variances in taxes), I find it comical and somewhat offensive that the non-rich of this country are so passionate and divided over how much to tax the rich. How many people out there making 30k, 50k...even 100k... are saying "please tax me more...and please reduce my entitlements". I hear crickets.

I mean, half the people in this country don't pay any f***ing taxes so of course their solution for everything is to raise taxes. Maybe it really is time for a consumption tax (for EVERY ONE on EVERY THING). Then when the govt needs more money, we raise that consumption tax and then we'll see how many people support higher taxes over spending cuts.

Amen. If people actually have to feel the pain of paying taxes, they aren't so quick to approve them. It's why having taxes taken out of paychecks isn't a great thing. Yes, it's convenient, but it minimizes the effects of paying taxes. Let people actually have to write out that check once a year so they can feel it all at once.

Nice little op-ed on What Would Reagan Do:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/273038/reagan-playbook-no-longer-applies-jonah-goldberg

While Obama’s invocation of Reagan worked on a lot of liberal pundits, it was a clunker with conservatives. Of course, it’s doubtful Obama thought it would actually persuade the GOP. After all, the 1982 deal that raised taxes was one of Reagan’s greatest regrets. The Democrats promised to cut $3 in spending for every $1 in tax increases. They lied, a fact Reagan resented until he died.

And that raises an important point for Republicans and Democrats alike. I don’t want to say, “Who cares what Reagan would have done?” It’s certainly an interesting question. But the answer in most cases is, “We have no idea.” Events today are different than they were in the 1980s. The notion that we can know what Reagan’s position would be today is to assume that his views wouldn’t adapt to new circumstances. The Republican party is full of veteran Reaganauts from back then. Their thinking has changed. Reagan’s probably would have too, and in the same direction.

Indeed, one of the reasons the tea parties are so “outrageously” intransigent and uncompromising is that they’ve seen what compromise has gotten in the past. In other words, they’ve learned the lessons of history. It’s an insult to Reagan’s memory to suggest that he wouldn’t have as well. My own view is that Reagan would look at the doubling of the size of the federal government in the last ten years and become awfully “stubborn” about reducing spending.

Oddly enough, this monstrosity of a problem with the size and spending of federal govt masks what is arguably a bigger crisis on the state and local level.

Despite how well capitalism and the model worked for the first 200 years, over the last 30 years or so we've increasingly moved toward socialism and central planning. Some of that is inevitable, arguably necessary. The govt DOES redistribute wealth successfully, it also destroys a good bit of that wealth in the process, and one can't help but wonder how much of that $14T debt is the bill for the wealth that's been destroyed over the last 30 years. And I can point to everyone's favorite model of socialism over in Europe at an economy that has underperformed for decades. And, of course, the Soviet Union failed. China is enjoying a huge boom thanks, in part, do to embracing more principles of capitalism. I think there's pretty strong empirical evidence that the upside for socialist models is, at best, treading water.

gut;845892 wrote:Oddly enough, this monstrosity of a problem with the size and spending of federal govt masks what is arguably a bigger crisis on the state and local level.

I agree. Federal subsidies to the states and local governments allow them to spend in a manner they would not without those funds.

gut;845892 wrote:Despite how well capitalism and the model worked for the first 200 years, over the last 30 years or so we've increasingly moved toward socialism and central planning. Some of that is inevitable, arguably necessary.

Maybe that is our problem. Too much socialism and central planning at the federal level. I am struggling to find federal authority under the constitution to engage in it as it does today.

gut;845892 wrote:I think there's pretty strong empirical evidence that the upside for socialist models is, at best, treading water.

I have absolutely not problem with socialism. Just the level of governace that its permitted. The constitution does not forbid it at the state and local level. It can work at the small state and local level. If the population is small and homogeneous.

majorspark;846405 wrote:I have absolutely no problem with socialism.

Nor do I. Most people don't. Problem is, most people love them some socialism as long as someone else pays. The economies in Europe have been a dog for years - it's a good thing so many live off the govt tit with little to no interest in finding a job because there are none. But there again, they ALL pay much higher taxes for their socialism - the VAT alone, which most likely is nearly all bourne by the consumer - averages in the the high teens and is something everyone would pay. And their SS payments are higher. This idea that the rich can fund unlimited govt spending is just ridiculous. But the Repubs don't want to tax anyone, and the Dems know they need to tax everyone but if they did in order to fund their great social experiment they know those programs would lose broad support and they'd lose a lot of votes...and THAT is why we have a $14T debt.

SS is a good one. It is essentially a forced govt savings program, which sadly most people need because they have no clue how to manage their money responsibly. But a prudent person would say "give me my 12.4% and I'll take care of myself". Do we really want SS? After being FORCED to pay in, HELL YES we want our money back. We have to pay all those people to collect and distribute those checks, so in reality it's an extremely expensive way to save. And that pretty much sums up most govt activity in a nutshell - they destroy more wealth than they transfer. We need to find a better model, a better way to transfer wealth more efficiently to close some of the gap between the rich and poor. This whole debt business is nothing more than throwing good money at bad, or actually as the case may be, throwing borrowed money at bad.

As for too much socialism and central planning at the federal level, I mostly agree. But I think it's a very complex argument. If you try to do this at the state or local level, the people with the money you rely on to pay for it are just going to move to another city or state. That's really a key question about whether something is more EFFICIENT and effective at the state/local or federal level, and because of technology it's a moving target. But the problem is forcing massive social programs on the entire country and creating dead weight loss that outweighs the real benefit - it's a meat clever when you need a scalpel. Healthcare is a great example. I understand there are people who can't afford healthcare, or that holes in the system cause people to be denied coverage, but the vast majority are either covered thru work OR could afford it but they prefer to have cell phones, big screen tv's, premium cable and nice cars, etc...Nationalized healthcare seems like a really poor solution for the much smaller % of people who truly need it, can't afford it or can't get coverage. And I'm not opposed at all to nationalized healthcare, I just have 0 confidence in our govt to run it in a value-added manner.

gut;846411 wrote:Problem is, most people love them some socialism as long as someone else pays.

this

gut;846411 wrote:After being FORCED to pay in, HELL YES we want our money back.

this

gut;846411 wrote:I just have 0 confidence in our govt to run it in a value-added manner.

and this

ccrunner609;847409 wrote:BO hasnt said a damn thing and offers no solutions.

But he does offer hope & change.