UPDATE: FOX 31′s Eli Stokols answers one question:
Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, and Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado Springs, both planned to vote against Boehner’s “Plan B”, which was pulled from the floor Thursday night after Boehner failed to whip enough members of his divided GOP caucus in line…According to talking points Lamborn gave his staff to pass on to constituents who bombarded the office with phone calls Thursday, the congressman “cannot support Plan B because it fails to give tax relief for one class of Americans.
“President Obama campaigned on a pledge to raise taxes, and Congressman Lamborn does not wish to assist him in raising taxes on any Americans,” the talking points continued. “Congressman Lamborn would like to see the Bush tax rates extended permanently for all Americans.”
Gardner, who is viewed as a rising star within the House GOP caucus but is closer to Majority Leader Eric Cantor than Boehner himself, “was not going to vote for it because it didn’t address spending at all,” according to spokeswoman Rachel George.
—–
Updating the fiscal cliff battle, Politico reports on yesterday’s dramatic failure in the House as Speaker John Boehner tried unsuccessfully to get the votes for his “Plan B” tax bill.
Things were so bad for Speaker John Boehner Thursday night, support for his Plan B tax bill so diminished, the limits of his power with his own party laid bare, that he stood in front of the House Republican Conference and recited the Serenity Prayer.“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.”
…It was supposed to be a moment of strength, a way to drag Obama and the Democrats toward them in the high-stakes fiscal cliff negotiations that have Washington teetering on the brink. Instead, it showed the world that either Boehner couldn’t bring 217 of his own members to his side, or they were unwilling to be led by him in this fight.
Yesterday’s failure by Speaker Boehner to pass his alternative measure significantly weakens his negotiating position. We haven’t heard whether any Colorado GOP representatives were part of the revolt; we expect that will come out soon enough. The House is reportedly on notice to be ready to head back to Washington, but this story indicates they may not reconvene before 2013–after the “fiscal cliff’s” mandatory spending cuts and tax increases have kicked in.
Rep. Mike Coffman had this to say to The Hill as the dust settled:
[A]fter a day and a half of intense lobbying on the part of the GOP leaders, rank-and-file members were stunned to learn that Boehner’s team was giving up the fight.“I’ve never seen anything like it where leadership just completely backed down. I guess they made an assessment that the people who were no votes were entrenched no votes, because otherwise I think they would have just pulled it and they would have worked it longer,” Colorado Rep. Mike Coffman (R) told The Hill.
Coffman called the meeting “awful.” “It’s the first time I’ve ever seen leadership retreat. It was a real shock – the Speaker looked shocked,” he said.
It’s difficult to predict what’s going to happen next, but Boehner can only effectively negotiate as the leader of the House of Representatives if he has the power to lead. Otherwise it’s honestly not clear on whose behalf he is “negotiating.” Either way, Boehner’s leverage to continue demanding entitlement cuts opposed by the voting public in exchange for bringing his caucus along on a deal may have just evaporated. How many moderate Republicans would need to defect to a Democratic solution? It’s not that many, folks.
And Rep. Coffman’s remarks on yesterday’s failure to pass Boehner’s plan oblige us to consider whether speculation about Boehner’s speakership imploding is coming true.
The problem now is that Boehner is in absolutely control of what happens next. Any revenue bill MUST, constitutionally, start in the House. As long as Boehner is Speaker, he controls what bills are voted on…..
Oh, that’s right.
It’s the Republican Party!
A new poll (sorry, didn’t catch which) finds that 52% of Americans find the Pubs “Too extreme.” First time ever.
Further, the same poll found that that is a SEVENTEEN POINT difference than two years ago!
Suicide by extremism.
come to Congressional reality:
“The best planned lays of . . . ”
And I do like the picture of Mike driving down I-25 by himself yelling, “Serenity! – Now!”
(That Serenity Prayer thing is going to keep me laughing for days — so much more entertaining than Willard caterwauling America the Beautiful.)
We can survive in 2013 on 1993 spending levels.
announce that since Boehner finds it impossible to negotiate with him that henceforth Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will be his contact in the House and she can negotiate with Boehner on behalf of the American people and the administration? I think it would be a hoot. She does seem to know how to talk with the House Rs
http://andrewsullivan.thedaily…
There is more
You write: “How many moderate Republicans would need to defect to a Democratic solution?”
Who’s talking “defection” at this point? Boehner has basically admitted that he can’t control his own caucus and that any fiscal cliff solution has to come from the President and the Senate.
Assuming that the President and Senate propose something, Boehner has boxed himself in to letting it go to a vote. And if it only gets a few moderate Republicans in the House, it’ll pass.
I’m thinking $500,000 and up tax hikes, a little more spending cuts … Voila.
But if Boehner pulls shenanigans to keep a proposal from getting a floor vote in the first place, he’ll easily be shown to be a liar.
This is what I said:
Perhaps you all need some clarification. Legislatively, on all revenue bills, specifically the ones that refer to the so-called “fiscal cliff,” Boehner is in charge. Nothing is initiated until or unless, he authorizes it.
The ball is literally in his court. That does NOT mean that he is in control of what the outcomes will be. It means nothing happens, legislatively, until he says so.
He has the power to initiate. No one else does, not FOX News, not all the talking heads on MSNBC, not the President, not Harry Reid, not anyone, except Boehner.
Jesus, this train wreck from SC is the very personification of the standard pinko Congressional Rep. that blew in with the teabag dolt tidal wave in ’10.
All kidding aside, this knucklehead was unaware that the “debt ceiling” addresses paying for legislation ALREADY PASSED.
How does a sitting Congressman not know what the debt ceiling is?
Are you kidding me?
Electing redlegs to any political office is kind of like……….no, it’s exactly like hiring someone who knows nothing about engines as your car mechanic.
I’ve never seen anything like this.
So he can get legislation through the Senate, too? And override a veto?
Don’t get caught up in the technical aspects of the thing. Reagan got his way a lot, despite never having a GOP majority in the House.
a minority of one if you can seriously use “Boehner” and “in control” in the same sentence.
THE REPUBLICAN WORLD! One can only hope.
Great commentary this morning by Robert Reich at Business Insider:
Not much else I can add, except: GOP — please hurry and get out of the way.
A new beginning to be achieved in the wake of some egg breaking.
What were taxation levels in those days? You speak as though the two aren’t connected.
Spending has historically averaged ~20% of GDP. We’re currently at ~22%. Revenue is at 15%.
You’re an idiot.
Its spending. Spending has grown faster than both the economy and revenue for many years. And all of the plans under debate continue to allow it to grow.
Especially Bush II.
How can we spend it down without increasing revenue? Spending cuts alone won’t do the job.
are the modern conservative of which John Galbraith spoke…
Welcome. Most of our rightie foils pushing the clearly failed policies that crushed our consumer economy by destroying the buying power of the 98% have deserted us since the ringing defeat of the 2012 election.
You remember… the one in which you guys only managed to keep the House because of gerrymandering enabled by what will go down in history as your last hurrah in 2010 and lost ground in both Houses along with failing to take back the White House in times of great discontent and high unemployment? Even though the guy in the White house at the time was a mixed raced centrist whose own base was kind of disappointed and with Hussein for a middle name? I mean if you couldn’t get her done under those circumstances a mere 2 years after your major triumph…. I mean, seriously? You had is all worried sick, I’ll hand you that. Turned out to be such a false alarm!
Still, we need to be reminded that troglodytes who cling to their discredited theories, not just in spite of all factual evidence but in proud rejection of the very idea of subjective reality, still exist here in beautiful once red, then purple, now more violet blue Colorado. We need to be reminded that you will try to screw with the electoral college system in all the states that went for Obama and D Senate candidates but have R legislatures and Govs, in a last desperate ploy to turn back time and demographics.
Thanks for helping us remember not to be too complacent. Have a nice day.
did he think he was in a room full of drunks?
And to be blunt, unless we get spending under control, there is no way we can pay it down without engaging in intentional inflation.
it will take until 2022 to see the GOP completely disappear
end of one cycle, birth of a new one will pan out and cut off some of that waiting time.
How about this from a departing Republican?
Note that this recognition that the crazies have taken over the GOP comes from a Republican, not a Dem. Also, wouldn’t an Insane asylum superintendent who completely lost control of the inmates actually be held responsible?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
of “value added”? You cannot choke a value added business, like mine, by committing too many resources to debt management. Once in a fiscal hole, you have to work your way out gradually by reducing your debt payments while continuing to BRING IN REVENUE. If you don’t commit enough resources to BRING IN REVENUE…you won’t have anything to pay down your debt and you will lose your company. I believe it works the same way with a nation.
Of course we have to control costs. We are trying to do so, but when Wall St. and the uber-wealthy are starving the government (synonym for “drowning in the bathtub”, eh, Grover?)for tax revenue, you can only pay the bills until the bank shuts you off.
Cost containment should be applied to corporations as well. Why should Americans agree to pay Insurance Co. CEOs $100,000,000 per year? Let’s legislatively cap CEO compensation at half the current levels. I’ll bet we could still find some talented people to work for $50,000,000 annually. Don’t you think?
It certainly would lower health care spending. What would lower it even more would be a single payer health care system.
I won’t rehash the other answers to your comment. I’ll just observe that you won’t even address revenue. Guess you can’t handle that idea, can you?
Though I doubt it, he may be capable of cognitive moments.
Losing control of your charges is grounds for dismissal.
Boner’s a goner
the superintendent’s job?
from among the crazy membership–unlike the current House….
armed guard suggestion, Columbine had one, probably a retired cop, I can’t remember, but he proved completely inadequate for stopping the two heavily armed killers.
How do the same people adamantly against raising taxes and throwing more money at our schools propose to pay for providing every single school with highly trained fully armed and armored guards?
You’d have to offer a very considerable salary to several per school in order to compete with what such people can make as mercenaries, excuse me, “contractors”. Naturally, even asking people who make over a million a year to contribute is not an option. I guess their answer would be to cut food stamps to feed children or take them off medicaid or something.
If their idea is for the equivalent of mall cops for mall cop pay, even that would require plenty of extra funding and would be a laughable defense against a fully armored shooter equipped with military style weaponry and high capacity clips.
As far as all the cultural factors the NRA blames instead of their industry, kids in Asia and Europe are exposed to the same kind of movies and video games and are less likely to be raised in religious households than American kids. What they don’t have is the same easy access to guns. We, 5% of the planet’s population, own 50% of the guns. And the NRA thinks we should own more guns and more expensive guns.
We aren’t ever going to go the Asian/European route with private gun ownership but there are plenty of things we can do. The NRA, an industry trade group and lobbying arm with the single goal of increasing sales and profits for their industry masquerading as a citizens’ organization for ordinary gun owners, will fight to block anything that cuts into profit. Period.
Not really. They are aiming at reducing spending growth. Not reducing spending itself. Not going to work.
Also, provide data sources if possible.
We also don’t need condescending instruction from an arrogant know it all Cassandra who has almost always proved to be as clueless as she accuses others of being. See the results of the last election for “clarification”.
As usual, you are completely missing the point. You may refine your own personal interpretation of what “control” means in this particular context all you want. We all know how the business of the House works. Thanks for the completely unnecessary civics lesson and don’t “people, people” us, if you please.
Oh, never mind.
Maybe she’s a bit exasperated (the emotion you mistake for anger). Maybe she’s even contemptuous (which might be what you perceive as a personal attack.) But put those parts of her post aside, and what remains is the truth.
The problem, dwyer, is that the rest of us grasp something that you seem to be missing. Namely, that this is about power – actual political power, and NOT what the Constitution says. The reason we can dismiss that is because Boehner is politically helpless. There is no need for him to initiate ANYTHING, because if he doesn’t, the “fiscal cliff” will take effect. There are already voted-on, signed-into-law mechanisms set to handle revenues and spending. Government will not shut down if he sits on his hands.
Boehner has no leverage. He has nothing with which to force Obama or the congressional Dems. All the Constitutional power in his hands means nothing because everything is set. All he’s left with is a desperate need to change that, but with an uncompromising wing of America-hating teabaggers on one side and a president with a mandate on the other. Maybe if Newt Gingrich were still around, he could find a way to manage this mess and come out a winner. But Boehner is no Gingrich.
The only thing Boehner controls next is whether or not the House is called back into session after Christmas. That’s the only thing he actually controls.
Yes, he currently (13 days and counting) holds the position which is nominally (Caesar among a gaggle of Brutuses [Bruti?]) the one which has the “power” to initiate or not (though there are even procedural tactics around that BTW).
But, I believe BC’s point–though I fear speaking on her behalf–is: We get all that. John Boehner is the fucking Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America! Some of us even understand what his job is and how much “power” it holds.
Why, fer chrisakes, don’t you understand that we understand that?
But what I fear is that you don’t understand it’s the office that holds the power. The holder can either be powerful or weak. John Boehner is the weakest Speaker in the history of our nation. Really. Weak to the point of having no actual power at all, either over the House generally or, critically, over his Republican caucus. Boehner’s at the point where he has to ask Cantor permission to light up a Kool.
In short, Boehner is not in charge. Boehner is checking to see if he still has his balls; if he’s got ‘em he sure doesn’t know which court they’re in.
In any event, Prof, please continue.
for Obama to go above the $250,000 base he was elected on?
After the jump, he needs to re-calibrate to that level, ask for more tax revenue from the rich (say, around a 50% rate), insist on extending unemployment insurance payments, up his ask for stimulus to at least $100b to get this economy moving, demand that Medicaid negotiate drug prices, and settle on other cuts from the Defense Department and corporate subsidies only. Voila.
the really efficient answer is ZPG..
right?
You erupt into a rage of personal attacks that don’t have anything to do with the issue at hand. Perhaps you wouldn’t get so upset if you had a better understanding of how the legislative process works. I attempted to point out that nothing happens legislatively until Boehner acts, that puts him in control of what happens next.
No, I am not a minority of one. I am in the majority. I stated a fact. What is your problem?
I was following up on a comment I made the day before about what I thought was happening in Washington DC.
I don’t like the fact that Boehner is “in control.”
I think you owe me an apology. I don’t think that people
who come here should be subject to being attacked for merely expressing an opinion.
“people, people, people”….this arouses your ire?? It was a favorite phase of a favorite nun I had a million years ago.
However, I will continue to express my opinion, but this is the last time I respond to you BC.
watch a few episodes of “the Dukes of Hazzard” and get back to me…the answer is in there, Grasshopper…
No more taxes. No gay marriage. No abortion. No immigration reform. Obama is an evil foreigner who is destroying the country. No prayer in public school is the root cause of everything bad. Christmas and Christians are victims under constant attack Compromise with the godless Dems is treason. Did I me miss anything?
Kill governance.
Any bill which increases the deficit increases the debt limit by the same CBO estimated amount.
It’s not the details of House procedure that are the issue here but if you really don’t get it somebody else will have to explain it to you. The fact that the technicalities you site are correct is simply not what the rest of the world is talking about. I haven’t heard anybody in any medium or of any political persuasion say that Boehner is in control of this situation. I guess every pundit, columnist, commentator, reporter, politician, Washington correspondent etc. is stupid and should apply to you for instruction. Either that or you’re clueless. Not to mention insufferable.
ALL guns good, liberals bad.
where these people are incompetent re: doing the Congressional work they were elected to do.
I mean the very idea a Congressional Representative’s been in the job for 2 years and actually doesn’t know what the debt ceiling flabberghasts me.
I fully understand citizens not comprehending it, but where has this guy been since he’s been sworn in?
This teabag bunch, which includes Tipton, is the most clueless, unprofessional, and fraudulent group I can remember.
Do you really need more?
Spending was 10% of GDP
which means you also saw the numbers during World War II, the supposed era whose mention makes every Republican cream his pants. What were they, pray tell?
That whole debt limit crap is a totally artificial “restraint” created by congress itself, the likes of which are unknown in any other nation on earth. The practical result has always been what you say anyway:
Since they always do a CBO estimate on spending bills, that might as well be the benchmark.
(Honestly, as I type, my belly is shaking and the dog is wondering what I think is so funny that doesn’t involve him.)
Is hardly the era’s spending that many of us who were in the original tea party (pre-infection by the anti-immigrant types) want. We want to go back to historical sub-10% of GDP spending.
We had that level of spending for the early part of our country’s history and we weren’t exactly living in the state of nature.
that one of you teabagging anarchists is actually admitting, in so many words, that your goal is to turn the clock back to the 19th (or even 18th) Century. I mean, that’s plainly evident by your attitudes and statements, but it’s still kind of shocking to see you say that.
aren’t interested in governing so much as in preventing governing, what with their hatred of the guv’mint and all. So why bother to learn what the job of governing involves? And how could I forget a specific mention of guns? Jeesh.
I like it.
unh hunh…
a simple “ditto” would have sufficed.
dwyer makes me afraid, very afraid.
old, old, old days. Infant mortality. Log cabins with all those modern utility connections. Compulsory 4th-frade educations. Child labor. Slavery. Native Americans to wipe out. Interstate horse paths. No suffrage.
Except for the muskets . . . single shot muzzle-loaders really suck.
That in a fiscal cliff deal, that not spending growth, but rather spending itself should be cut?
If so, and if the following numbers are correct (yes from weekly standard, but work with me here) are correct, wouldn’t a 55% growth in gov’t spending over the next decade give you pause?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/…
spending was around 10% of GDP. Do you think we were living in the state of nature during the New Deal era?
came from a source other than the Weekly Standard, I might, at least, be inclined to read it all. Not only does the Standard try to mislead you with the design of their graph, but the number manipulations don’t add up to the disaster you imply it does.
You are either not much of a history student or it does not seem to matter to you that millions of Americans dwelt in squalor and lived lives of desperate poverty during the “early part of our country’s history”.
You might try living in Haiti for a while to help you get the idea.
if we also agree that we need to increase revenue.
Can you agree to that?
I was hoping we could at least agree that spending should not grow. It seems you are hesitant to agree to that.
As for people living in squalor/poverty – we disagree about the best means to rectify that and whether gov’t spending does in fact serve to rectify that over the long-haul.
if America doesn’t grow..perhaps we should accelerate the deportation of undesirables and not allow the folks wth the wrong skin color to reproduce.
Would that suit you?
If you won’t make any, why should I?
so-called “undesirables” (immigrant from Mexico), I’ll be strongly against your notion that we should deport all immigrants and not allow people of the “wrong” skin color to reproduce.
If you want to have an immigration policy discussion, I’m happy to do that on another thread, given it is a topic I’ve written extensively on. My guess is you are making mistaken assumptions on my immigration views.
http://www.gazette.com/article…
I just want to make sure I understand what you believe.
But if you think I have, please quote it.
Either you think spending should increase (not just the growth rate, but the spending itself), or you don’t. Which do you think?
You owe me an explanation first. Why shouldn’t revenue increase? The answer to that is not dependent upon what to do about spending. After all, we have a massive debt to pay down.
You’ll get my position in due time, but only if you play fair.
That gives you plenty of time to make your case. The burden rests upon your shoulders, Elliot, so make you response worthwhile.
We were just talking what each of our positions are. Explanations come after positions.
My position is freeze spending if not substantially cut it. If spending doesn’t grow at all (and especially if it is cut), eventually revenues will increase along with economic growth to make up for any shortfall.
I get that you will probably disagree with the above. I also get that you want more revenue. What I don’t get is if you want to freeze spending (forget cutting it) or not. And if you don’t want to freeze it, how much do you think it should grow by?
I’ll try to remember to come back later, but I’m waiting for you to describe what you think the appropriate level of spending growth is, and why.
Have a good day with your family…mine awaits..
Sharpen your argument while we take a break for the Holiday.
is the one that ensures our economy doesn’t flounder, which at this point in time means running a deficit. This works, and what you’re proposing doesn’t (see: Europe). I do not know if any growth is required at this point.
Now, like you, I’m unqualified to actually name a dollar figure or a percentage of the GDP. But I do know history, and I know that those figures need not be precise. Despite what economists sometimes proclaim, it isn’t a science. At least, it’s not one that can be pulled off with the complete control found in actual sciences.
I’m spending mine working from home. At least until late afternoon.
Because as EconStories likes to say – the long run is here.
and why should what they say have any bearing on this discussion?
Long term, we need greater revenue than we’ve been bringing in since the Bush tax cuts (and spending growth) were enacted. We shouldn’t run deficit spending when the economy is humming along and the government is taking in its fair share from those who have gotten an unfair break from contributing.
You are missing out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Do you have anything to say in response to my assertion that greater revenue is needed? If not, it’s time to end this discussion.
Cut spending instead. Or even agree to freeze it, which you seem unwilling to do.
But beyond this argument, check out the Econstories Keynes v. Hayek videos above. They are really good/entertaining. And surprisingly intellectual.
Why shouldn’t revenue also increase? What benefit to America does leaving tax levels low bring? (Be careful not to repeat now-decisively discredited trickle-down theories in answering that. We have the hardest possible proof that they don’t work that way.)
I am unwilling to stake out a position to freeze spending when I know there’s a chance that it may need to be increased. I never take hard positions – that’s foolish.
“Work” is a vague term.
Do you at least agree that a cut in the growth rate in spending should not be called a spending cut if spending continues to increase from the prior year?
First, these questions are a deflection from answering my direct question, “Why shouldn’t revenue also increase? What benefit to America does leaving tax levels low bring?” These are all tangential issues that can be worked out in the back-and-forth AFTER you address the question you were asked. You’re not a witness on the stand.
Second, these are all well-defined terms, and anyone participating on this blog knows what they mean. I know that you’re aware of them. You can tell me what they mean to you when you answer my question, if you choose. But you have to answer the question, or live with my judgment of your honesty. (Don’t worry, I doubt it will affect your practice.)
Is hardly dishonesty. For example, trickle down can be termed to mean multiple things: do you mean it stands for the proposition that cutting taxes will increase GDP? Increase tax revenue? Decrease poverty? Or some combination of all three? Or something else that isn’t listed?
And the other term (“work”) is utterly vague, especially when used in conjunction with “benefit to America”. You used it in the sentence(s):
“What benefit to America does leaving tax levels low bring? (Be careful not to repeat now-decisively discredited trickle-down theories in answering that. We have the hardest possible proof that they don’t work that way.”
I’m sorry, but your inability to write precise sentences is hardly any reflection on my honesty, especially when I take the time to ask you for clarification on your points of imprecision.
You say you have hard evidence that “trickle down” (however you are choosing to use the term) doesn’t work to the benefit of America. Perhaps your imprecision in language can be remedied if you simply tell me what your evidence is and what you think it shows.
Coming up with any reason not to answer it. That is dishonest.
Vague terms are not present in the question. You can argue that they’re in the tangents, but not the question itself.
Nope. Nothing vague here. Neither is your discomfort in addressing it, dancing around, seizing upon asides and tangents that don’t change the question at all.
I’ll see if you can bother with answering, but if you can’t, let this be my final word: You’re dishonest, and I will be around to jump into your future discussions on Pols to remind people of that.
I simply asked you which one you were referring to. You chose not to specify, despite my repeated requests for you to do so. If you would simply specify which of the multiple meanings you are referring to, I’ll do my best to address said meaning.
I’m going to skip your imprecision on “trickle down” and “benefit”
Higher tax rates always, unless they are pigouvian in nature, cause a cost to society. What you are trying to argue that society can do things with the revenue that are of greater benefit than the resulting costs. I don’t think you can demonstrate that the benefits the government can achieve with additional revenue outweigh the costs in obtaining it.
Except where Harvey was usually right and always careful to make intelligent arguments, Fladen is…not so much.
Gotta like how the guy who basically tried to take me to the woodshed for being “vague” is vague when he finally deigns to answer.
Hey Elliot – of course there’s a “cost.” There’s a “cost” when someone buys stock in a company, too. Saying there’s a “cost” is meaningless.
Also, nice try putting words in my mouth, and ignoring the issue of the national debt, which I have repeatedly raised. I think we need to increase revenues so that we can pay down our debts. Simply “freezing” spending won’t do that.
A spending freeze would serve to eliminate the national debt as tax revenues would rise over the long haul faster than interest payments due to increases in GNP (not just GDP).
As for costs, I’m glad you recognize that nonpigouvian taxation only causes costs. So what are your elusive benefits you claim of the purportedly resulting revenue that outweigh such costs?
because taxes are defined to be pigouvian when they decrease social costs.
Next you’ll tell me all nonnegative numbers are positive! You crazy kids!
“Of course there’s a cost” =/= “only causes costs.”
Try again. I compared the cost of revenues to the cost of investing for a reason.
Isn’t included. Didn’t want to get nailed for making an overly blanket statement.
Would suffice. It isn’t that hard. You should try it sometime instead of your M.O. which seems to be hurling insults.
Getting back on point, “saying there is a cost” is not in fact meaningless – contrary to your argument. Instead, it matters because your point needs to be made clear as opposed to the imprecise arguments you are using:
you seem to be trying to argue that society can do things with the revenue that are of greater benefit than the resulting costs of taxes.
If you aren’t in fact arguing that, just say so. This is why I wanted you to be clear on what your point was earlier.
And if this is what you are arguing, then we don’t agree. I don’t think you can show that there is a great enough benefit through the spending you want to justify the costs of the taxation you will require to fund said spending.
Elliot is a friend of mine (offline as well as online) and while I certainly also disagree with his arguments here, I don’t think that you are correct he’s dishonest. I’d like to see him stick around here. We could use some conservative-leaning commenters/diarists who are actually willing to engage in discussion and who don’t just copy/paste boilerplate from conservative sites.
I’ve seen Elliot’s thinking evolve (both leftward and rightward on different issues) over time an vouch for that he does not exclusively look for evidence supporting his existing conclusions. Like most human beings, he prefers to see his theories validated rather than invalidated, but I think he’s at least as open as I am (I give me a 3 of 10) to changing his mind on political issues over time.
I’m not trying to pull a Thielen here, and I warned Elliot that this blog tends to be no-holds-barred when you piss somebody off (short of outing and such), but if my opinion here matters to you at all, it’s that it would be healthier for the blog to welcome Elliot than to try to chase him off. It gets too echo chambery here. And besides, at least if E hangs around, the people who compulsively nominate Rs for FPE will have someone besides Libertad to rally ’round next time..
I quoted and blockquoted my question repeatedly. You really shouldn’t have missed my point.
But saying “there is a cost” IS meaningless as a standalone statement, as you first made it. It’s meaningless because there is a cost with EVERYTHING. If you want something, you have to give something first.
What you probably meant was to say that the benefits aren’t worth the costs. Although if it is, that’s what you should have said.
Anyway, we need revenue to pay our debts. You say this:
Well, it’s a one-sentence argument, but I’ll try to run with it. First, what are these interest payments you mean? Government bonds? Second, what’s the connection between spending (money leaving government coffers) and the revenue you allege will increase as a result of freezing it?
You are a very bright man. Pleased to make your acquaintance. I have enjoyed the exchange, and I certainly encourage you to stick around. One of the first tests you pass around here is the epidermal test…the one that gauges the thickness of your skin. Yours is pretty thick. PCGs’ recommendation of you carries a lot of weight (with me, anyway).
You may remember this advice from above..
Hanging around here is sometimes brutal…
Words matter. Welcome.
but he needs to take care to address the questions he’s asked point-blank. You’re right; we don’t hold back here.
Not sure if your name is out or not so I’ll be cautious.
You can also follow my page on Facebook which is also no holds bar – but a little more substantive in its discussions – and I get national journalists, field experts and state/federal politicians to weigh in on various topics.
1) I’d say off hand the interest we pay off of T-Bills but I might be leaving one or several things out there. Feel free to let me know if I am forgetting a source or two of interest payments.
2) Government spending does increase revenue…but the spending doesn’t come out of nowhere (intentional double negative). Instead it has to be paid for out of taxes or debt, both of which crowd out the private sector. So the question is whether the “money” goes farther in terms of creating value in the private sector or the public sector. My position is that almost always the money creates more value outside the public sector – and as such you are shrinking the pie by having the government appropriate and spend the same money.
That isn’t what I was getting at though. Through three effects – inflation, population growth, and productivity growth, our GNP is going to continue to climb with time. As the GNP climbs we will naturally have more tax revenue ceteris paribus (all else held equal).
The question then becomes whether the growth in such revenue will be eclipsed by the growth in spending. If you freeze spending, or if revenue grows faster than spending, you don’t have an issue.
BTW – Writing the about out, I now realize earlier that when you asked if we need more revenue, you may have been thinking about simple increases in revenue from longterm economic growth (i.e. leaving the current system in place and letting revenue grow naturally as the economy grows with time). If so, sorry for not making this clear, but I wasn’t thinking of your question as calling for that – instead I thought of it as calling for more revenue sources (either through higher income appropriation percentages, closed purported loopholes, closed deductions, expanding AMT, or new tax types altogether).
Pols has set an unfortunate precedent by banning someone who once stated another polster’s full name, even though that individual had posted it himself on a prior occasion. It’s nice that they have our backs when protecting our true identity against “outing,” but not everyone is truly anonymous.
Than intentionally outing somebody. Is PCG out?
This is one of those things that would make an “edit” button really useful.