Post a New Topic
US budget crisis fix per the Economist
Original post made
by al norte sm, another community,
on Apr 22, 2011
Some may say the CPC Budget Plan isn't serious, but it does balance the budget faster than the Republican Ryan plan does, without as much pain to the weakest among us, and without as many debt ceiling extensions.
From the Economist: Web Link
"Have you ever heard of the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget plan? Neither had I. The caucus's co-chairs, Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, released it on April 6th. The budget savings come from defence cuts, including immediately withdrawing from Afghanistan and Iraq, which saves $1.6 trillion over the CBO baseline from 2012-2021. The tax hikes include restoring the estate tax, ending the Bush tax cuts, and adding new tax brackets for the extremely rich, running from 45% on income over a million a year to 49% on income over a billion a year.
Mr Ryan's plan adds (by its own claims) $6 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, but promises to balance the budget by sometime in the 2030s by cutting programmes for the poor and the elderly. The Progressive Caucus's plan would (by its own claims) balance the budget by 2021 by cutting defence spending and raising taxes, mainly on rich people. Mr Ryan has been fulsomely praised for his courage. The Progressive Caucus has not.
I'm not really sure what "courage" is supposed to mean here, but this seems precisely backwards. For 30 years, certainly since Walter Mondale got creamed by Ronald Reagan, the most dangerous thing a politician can do has been to call for tax hikes. Politicians who call for higher taxes are punished, which is why they don't do it. I'm curious to see what adjectives people would apply to the Progressive Congressional Caucus's budget proposal. But it's hard for me to imagine the media calling a proposal to raise taxes "courageous" and "honest". And my sense is that the disparate treatment here is a structural bias rooted in class."
If any financial publication knows class warfare, it's the Economist.
Like this comment
Posted by Cynic
a resident of Greater Miranda
on May 3, 2011 at 10:45 am
I felt fine, given that I don't think it is my right to take anything from anyone...
I felt fine, given that each gallon of gas brings in 40-60 cents of taxes to the government, State and Fed.
I felt fine, given that because there is a "profit" doesn't mean I can steal it. Fine, given that "profit" gets poured back out into dividends for retired seniors, R and D for new energy options, drilling, improving safety..and of course MONEY to the government, the greediest business there is.
Guess what? I have owned a company that "made" a million one year, but paid it all back out in development, salaries to employees, taxes and i got nothing...no real profit. But on paper it "looked" like profit.
Non-profits "make" billions, to the tune of 68 Billion even in 2009, including Catholic Charities..this is not "profit". Web Link
We have a lot of educating of our public to do about how companies operate, what is "profit" or net, and what is "making" or gross income. Most people don't even begin to understand how a company begins, operates, grows, employs..what impedes its growth and what helps it, and in the end, how much we want really successful, really rich companies to be HERE in the USA so we get the employment and the tax base.
Focus on the "profit" of Exxon by Catholic dot org is highly hypocritcal to me. I am Catholic, and I am continually appalled by the ignorance of my particular brand of do-gooders in the name of "social justice". Catholic dot org forgot to mention how much "profit" Catholic Charities made in 2009, didn't they? And they forgot to mention that if we kill off the ability to get "rich", we kill off the ability to donate, didn't they?
They forgot to mention that the problem is not that Exxon paid no taxes that year ( assuming that is true, which I haven't tracked down), the problem is that we help smooth troubles in bad years by companies by letting them write off "bad things" and lower their tax liability. I am not sure this is an actual problem, but if we "fix" it for Exxon, the big bad wolf of the left, then the REAL problem for the left is that we have to fix it for GE, the latest darling of the left, which paid ZERO also. So, what do you want to do? As long as we all play by the same rules, I am fine.
By the way, Profit, be it the 68 Billion brought in by charities in 2009 as linked to above, none of it taxable, is profit, and should neither be demonized, nor punished. Without private profit, there would be no tax base, and there would be no donations.
Stop punishing the very people ( companies) who make it possible for the rest of us to earn enough to give that 68 billion to charities.
Or, in the end, we end up with nothing from anyone.
To post your comment, please click here to Log in
. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.