6 ms·

Tax rates were higher under Clinton and the economy was booming. Oh, and there was a budget surplus. Along comes W, we end up in multiple confrontations over

Tax rates were higher under Clinton and the economy was booming. Oh, and there was a budget surplus. Along comes W, we end up in multiple confrontations over seas, cut incoming revenues (of which I will admit to benefiting), and end up with huge deficits? Clearly going back to anything in the Clinton era would tank the economy. The particular article is particularly fluffy in the "private enterprise will solve all problems" with comments about infrastructure programs like trains, etc. The fact that we are spending less on infrastructure (roads, rail, fiber, etc) is one reason we are seeing an overall quality of service decline. I will certainly admit there are issues with the US tax code and there needs to be more efficiency in the system. It is pretty clear that relying on private industry for infrastructure (especially where there is a (or near) monopoly, the companies do NOT do what's write for the country. Another local to California example PG&E and the gas pipeline debacle.

dantheman 15y ago
The problem isn't taxation, it's spending. If we went back to Clinton levels of spending we'd have a massive surplus. The big cuts that are coming due to the debt ceiling negotiations aren't actually cuts, they're decreases in predicted spending increases -- we can't even hold the budget steady. This is complete madness.
- headShrinker 15y ago
  You're both right.
  - gcb 15y ago
    ...and slightly off topic.
- jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
  The problem is neither taxation nor spending. It's a failure to correlate revenue to our financial commitments. We will not be able to cut our way to deficit reduction in our lifetimes; there's just too much deficit there. The superstitious belief that we can balance our books by cuts alone (thereby likely throwing the country into a second recession, which would make matters worse) is the real madness in this discussion.
  - wisty 15y ago
    There are multiple problems, some of which interrelated. You could go all the way back to the constitution of the USA. The US has non-compulsory voting, because in theory this ensures only well-informed, conscientious voters turn up. In reality, it leads to pork barrelling. Let's say you are a chicken farmer, in a chicken farming district, and Congress is considering a subsidy (or tax) on chicken farms. You and the boys at the chicken farmer's club have an incentive to mobilize, and try to get people to vote for the party (or candidates) with chicken-friendly views. But the apathetic masses would rather just not vote, because this pork barreling debate will not hurt their wallets that much. Whereas in Australia (which has compulsory voting), a politician who runs an anti-pork campaign can get a fair bit of support from apathetic voters who don't want to be at the polling booth, but have a sneaking suspicion that government spending is not always wise.
- kitsune_ 15y ago
  The problem is, that in almost all of the west, without government spending, 30% to 50% of society would be in deep poverty. To me it looks like the elite and the government collude to pacate the vast majority of have-nothings. A large percentage of a nation's income lands in the bags of a few thousands. In the mean time the government borrows money from the future in order to pay off the millions who get nothing.
- jmspring 15y ago
  Indeed. The bigest spending areas right now are - our "obligations" in the middle east and stimulus/spending related to the recession. If I had to cut one of those two, I know where I would certainly cut, and it isn't anything domestic. We should be building infrastructure. I hear a lot in the news about roads/bridges/etc. But, here in CA, after one of the earthquakes a few years ago, the contractor came in way under their time estimate and got a bonus. There is a way to structure infrastructure projects so that they can be more efficient/cost effective. Granted, there does need to be someone who looks at feasability -- a train between norcal and socal makes sense, the bridge that they wanted to build in alaska? Less so. Another item, and I am being selfish here, that should be put into policy -- the amount of money states "get back" in federal $$ should be closer to what they contribute. This would make it much clearer to states that contribute much less, just how much they are living off the teet of the federal govt and other states in the union.
  - dantheman 15y ago
    If the states get back what they contribute, why have the federal government collect it at all?

dantheman 15y ago

The problem isn't taxation, it's spending. If we went back to Clinton levels of spending we'd have a massive surplus. The big cuts that are coming due to the debt ceiling negotiations aren't actually cuts, they're decreases in predicted spending increases -- we can't even hold the budget steady. This is complete madness.

headShrinker 15y ago
You're both right.
- gcb 15y ago
  ...and slightly off topic.
jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
The problem is neither taxation nor spending. It's a failure to correlate revenue to our financial commitments. We will not be able to cut our way to deficit reduction in our lifetimes; there's just too much deficit there. The superstitious belief that we can balance our books by cuts alone (thereby likely throwing the country into a second recession, which would make matters worse) is the real madness in this discussion.
- wisty 15y ago
  There are multiple problems, some of which interrelated. You could go all the way back to the constitution of the USA. The US has non-compulsory voting, because in theory this ensures only well-informed, conscientious voters turn up. In reality, it leads to pork barrelling. Let's say you are a chicken farmer, in a chicken farming district, and Congress is considering a subsidy (or tax) on chicken farms. You and the boys at the chicken farmer's club have an incentive to mobilize, and try to get people to vote for the party (or candidates) with chicken-friendly views. But the apathetic masses would rather just not vote, because this pork barreling debate will not hurt their wallets that much. Whereas in Australia (which has compulsory voting), a politician who runs an anti-pork campaign can get a fair bit of support from apathetic voters who don't want to be at the polling booth, but have a sneaking suspicion that government spending is not always wise.
kitsune_ 15y ago
The problem is, that in almost all of the west, without government spending, 30% to 50% of society would be in deep poverty. To me it looks like the elite and the government collude to pacate the vast majority of have-nothings. A large percentage of a nation's income lands in the bags of a few thousands. In the mean time the government borrows money from the future in order to pay off the millions who get nothing.
jmspring 15y ago
Indeed. The bigest spending areas right now are - our "obligations" in the middle east and stimulus/spending related to the recession. If I had to cut one of those two, I know where I would certainly cut, and it isn't anything domestic. We should be building infrastructure. I hear a lot in the news about roads/bridges/etc. But, here in CA, after one of the earthquakes a few years ago, the contractor came in way under their time estimate and got a bonus. There is a way to structure infrastructure projects so that they can be more efficient/cost effective. Granted, there does need to be someone who looks at feasability -- a train between norcal and socal makes sense, the bridge that they wanted to build in alaska? Less so. Another item, and I am being selfish here, that should be put into policy -- the amount of money states "get back" in federal $$ should be closer to what they contribute. This would make it much clearer to states that contribute much less, just how much they are living off the teet of the federal govt and other states in the union.
- dantheman 15y ago
  If the states get back what they contribute, why have the federal government collect it at all?