Askthepizzaguy
Know the Dark Side
Not even to disagree with Skwink, but I'd like to suggest that here's a point that is almost universally agreed on by the general public. WWII was great for America, even though our national debt, deficits, and so forth skyrocketed, lives were lost by the hundreds of thousands, and it was ruinous for several countries around the world. Lots, and lots, and lots, of negatives. But we WON, that's the important part, right?
How did the economy turn around, may I ask? Are bullets magical, and do the manufacture of bullets cure stock markets?
This is in stark contrast to those who look at our current economic woes and suggest that government spending is the big devil behind it all. Hmmm! Trillions spent on war good, trillions spent on helping sick people get medicine bad.
War good, medicine bad.
War good, bailouts bad.
War good, social security bad.
War good, clean energy bad.
War good, infrastructure bad.
War good, research bad.
War good, public education bad.
So, extremely high tax rates for the purpose of obliterating human lives good, gigantic deficits based on military spending good, deficits based on feeding and curing people bad.
Just trying to make sure we're on the same page, here.
Ideally, it would be great if we could have a balanced budget or a budget surplus, like any responsible household. But, if our wife is sick for example, the budget becomes less of an issue, and keeping her well becomes the top priority. In our own household, we don't cut off medical care to our family members because it gets expensive, even if it is budget-breaking.
What's even more interesting, is we had a balanced budget and a budget surplus before, and we still had the same social security programs and medicare and welfare programs as we do now. Some reforms took place, to cut some waste and corruption, and that's sane and reasonable. But, we still had social security and medical care and welfare for the recently unemployed.
The economy was doing better then, sure. But we also hadn't done the decade of tax cuts for the wealthiest among us thing, so we also had higher tax rates.
What does this all mean?
1.) Government spending can stimulate the economy, and it has.
2.) The economy can thrive even with higher taxes.
3.) Lower taxes does not cure the economy.
4.) A balanced budget is possible even while taking care of our own citizens.
If you factor in the tax cuts and the costs of these several wars we are in, our budget could have stayed balanced, and we could have taken care of our citizens.
The folks railing about the budget insist that we slash funding for vital things like social security and medicare, but also insist we continue to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, in a down economy, where the middle class is shrinking and unemployment is high, and under-employment is high, while the richest among us are doing quite well (stock market is doing great, and the only class that is prospering is the.... duh.... wealthiest class).
So, blowing up things in other countries on a credit card, and racking up future charges for medical care for our veterans GOOD, but taking care of the people in our own country who are already sick and need care BAD.
Death, destruction, ruination of nations, innocent civilian casualties, and doing it all on your Mastercard GOOD.
Ending the temporary tax cuts for the wealthiest among us because we can't afford it, never could have afforded it, and it's not magically curing the economy BAD. Keeping funding levels for social security and medicare on par with the needs of our people BAD.
Putting tens of thousands of our own people in harms way, and getting them hurt, and putting them on the government dole for the rest of their lives while they collect medical care and pension and so on and so forth (which they rightly deserve) GOOD, but trying to limit the number of people that get put in harms way and not starting wars of choice BAD.
I'm just trying to understand the consistent logic here.
Extending tax cuts for the richest and most prosperous among us, in a time of WAR(S,S,S), while our budget isn't balanced, after a decade of lower taxes, even though leaving the tax rates where they are isn't curing the economy, that's GOOD!
Trying to fix budget shortfalls with tax hikes on those who can afford it BAD!
Keeping social welfare benefits the same, so people don't go without medicine or the ability to live in a structure and eat, that's too much to ask, we can't do that. But, we can afford:
- More wars
- Extension of tax cuts
- More tax cuts
- Paying farmers not to grow food
- Subsidies to for-profit oil companies
- No-bid contracts for military equipment the military no longer needs, uses, or wants.
- Sending tax dollars to prop up foreign governments
- Sending weapons to countries that abuse their own citizens and suppress their rights
- Doing all of this above cost, by paying interest to other countries on the loans it takes to pay for this when we have no money
This is fiscal responsibility?
The first thing we cut on our list of things to cut is medicare and social security, for the poorest among us?
That makes total sense.
Wealthy are doing great. Wealthy have enjoyed a decade of tax breaks. Wealthy are the only ones in this economy doing well. In fact, they've never been better. The disparity between the wealthy and the poor is staggering, and the gap gets bigger and bigger by the day, while inflation makes the poor even poorer, and wages stagnate!
So, the very first thing we need to do, is take money away from people who have none, to pay Richie Rich a tax rebate he doesn't need, so he can buy another yacht, at a time when Richie Rich is doing well, and his company is doing well, but he still refuses to HIRE PEOPLE due to "economic uncertainty".
What's the uncertainty, we ask?
Tax rates MIGHT go up.
They MIGHT!
They just might.
So, lower taxes for the rich, it turns out, means that they still won't hire people.
So, I say, nuts to them. I'd be more candid, but this is CFC, and I'm not quite sure what censored bombs I'm allowed to drop here.
I would suggest, that, in order to be consistent:
- People complaining about the budget MUST put tools on the table to fix the budget, including tax increases, or they can just shut the heck up about it. There is no such thing as a "bipartisan compromise" if you get 100% of what you want. Tough dooky. Put up or shut up, I say.
- People suggesting that wars can boost the economy get a grip and realize that it boosts the economy for military contractors, who often contract outside the united states. That money leaves the country. It even gets sent overseas on great big palattes, in cash, and DISAPPEARS, and no one bats a freaking eye. Not to mention with no bids and limited oversight, the price for these things gets marked up by 50%, 100%, 1000%, or 10000%, BECAUSE THEY CAN AND YOU DON'T CARE. There's a difference between World War II and the current conflicts, big honking differences, and I don't know if you've noticed, but.... our economy is still not soaring!
- People suggesting that we can't afford to pay for vital programs for the elderly, the sick, the poor, and the unemployed, need to realize what that means.
That means we can't afford farm subsidies.
That means we can't afford more wars.
That means we can't afford oil and gas subsidies.
That means we can't afford corporate tax breaks or loopholes.
That means we can't afford bailouts.
That means we can't afford aid to foreign countries.
That means we can't afford no-bid contracts.
That means we can't afford pay raises for congress.
That means we can't afford more loans to pay for all this.
That means we can't afford more wars.
That means we can't afford oil and gas subsidies.
That means we can't afford corporate tax breaks or loopholes.
That means we can't afford bailouts.
That means we can't afford aid to foreign countries.
That means we can't afford no-bid contracts.
That means we can't afford pay raises for congress.
That means we can't afford more loans to pay for all this.
So that means, we shouldn't be raising the debt ceiling. It means we should be slashing or eliminating funding for each item on the above list.
And, let's prioritize. What do we cut first....
- Do we cut medical care to the elderly first?
[*]Or do we stop paying farmers not to grow crops, and sending money to hostile, unstable, corrupt governments and businesses overseas?
Gee I dunno that's a hard one. But let's cut taxes some more, and blow up a few more countries while making up our minds. Obviously, the logical conclusion is, because social security and medicare takes up a big portion of the pie, that means it has to be the first to go.
You see, according to some folks, welfare programs make up a bigger percentage of our budget, and that means that they have to be cut first.
Because, based on no logic whatsoever, a budget pie chart should have equal size slices. It's more aesthetically pleasing that way. Therefore, the biggest slices must be cut first, because they're the most frivolous, most wasteful, and nothing bad will happen if we make those pieces smaller.
By virtue of the fact that they take up a larger portion of the budget.
Nevermind those palattes of money shipped overseas and then just plain turn up MISSING.
No, we've got to cut the payments for grandma's medication, because OBVIOUSLY, GRANDMA IS THE ONE RIPPING US OFF.
Priorities:
1) Discounted tax rates for the wealthy (Republicans won't even talk about the budget unless tax increases are OFF THE TABLE when the tax rates are supposed to be temporarily cut, as in temporary, as in they go back up higher later)
2) We can't touch the military spending, because that's vital and it's a time of war. We can't look at things which are obviously wasteful and cut them, even when the military agrees it is wasteful. That would be politically suicidal. I've got business interests to think about!
3) Subsidies are good, and if you cut them, prices will go up. Oh noes.
4) Propping up foreign governments is good. You cut funding their you'll abandon our allies. Oh noes. Not the beloved Egyptians! Whatever will we do without their help!?!
5) My state needs pork projects, because it makes my constituents happy. I will vote for those. However, I will also make a big show of suggesting the federal government's spending is out of control, and I'll pretend to oppose pork spending, while standing in front of cameras with big giant checks with the governor's name on it, smiling, as if taking credit for this money. Evil bad federal government, providing money to me which I then take credit for and suggest to my constituents that I'm doing great as governor because I'm giving them this federal money. I can have it both ways. No, I won't cut pork spending, are you out of your minds???
.......
57) Something about the unemployed, elderly, sick, or downtrodden. I suppose we should do something for them, if we can ever get around to it. I feel your pain. But, you need to pull yourselves up by your bootstraps, and get a third or fourth job. There, problem solved.
Meanwhile, let me lecture you about how the welfare makes us weaker because it gets people to rely on the government's help.
That's bad, in principle.
I'm a very principled man.
