NYT Blog: Keep Your Government Hands Off My Government Programs!

[mardi gras skin]

Not a single person who has posted in this thread has argued that cuts to the defense budget will solve our problems. Rather, a number of people have noted that the defense budget should be cut AND Congress should cut to entitlement spending.

Great. And some people in other threads think NPR's budget should be cut. A lot of people have a lot of ideas about what should be cut.

But to say, "look defense spending is big so that's the problem with our out of control budget" is wrong. Defense spending has decreased relative to our national wealth and our federal revenues.

[Madison Redskin]

But to say, "look defense spending is big so that's the problem with our out of control budget" is wrong. Defense spending has decreased relative to our national wealth and our federal revenues.

Again, no one is saying that defense spending is "the" problem with our out of control budget. It is part of the problem. I would also argue that, regardless of the debt crisis, spending nearly as much as the rest of the entire world on defense is unreasonably excessive.

[Yusuf06]

Especially if you don't have to pay for them.

Yesterday, I read a piece. (Probably while I was following the links above.) It was talking about how a big part of the situation we're in, today, is due to a philosophy that was popular among conservatives 30 years ago, referred to as "starve the beast".

The theory was that the way to curb the government was tax cuts, and lots of em. That if the government doesn't have any money, then it won't grow, and will actually shrink.

Funny, I've been thinking about this for the last six or eight months or so. I thought I was the only one that remembered it though.

By the 90's or so I'd bought into this idea hook, line, and sinker. Nowadays, not so much.

Ah geez, now Medicare's gonna have to put out so more money for Thiebear's paranoia treatments. That's a lot of dough in psychopharmocology.

I absolutely agree and, as I noted in another thread, Obama punted the issue of cuts to entitlement spending to the GOP. I generally agree with your proposals regarding Social Security and I realize that cuts to Medicare/Medicaid will likely be necessary as well.

As he should have. The GOP assailed him as a big govt. liberal, pinko, tax-and-spend communist, etc. and Obama was supposed to then turn around and pay the political price for proposing cuts to entitlements? I doubt even the most rabid Tea Party nitwit would think Obama is that stupid.

Had the GOP made even token efforts at being bipartisan and dealing in good faith on other issues, I think Obama would have been game to have the discussion. However under the circumstances, he's handled this in exactly the right way, i.e. let the GOP figure out how to get themselves out of the fiscal austerity corner they've painted themselves into. I can't wait to see what happens to the GOP/Tea Party's alleged "mandate" in the 2012 election.

We spend nearly as much on defense as we do on Medicare/Medicaid. We will end up spending $3,000,000,000,000.00 (let alone the tens of thousands who have been killed and wounded) to fight the war in Iraq. But defense spending isn't a problem? Why is spending $3,000,000,000,000.00 on the Iraq War a problem, but a proposal to spend a tiny fraction of that amount on feeding malnourished kids a problem?

I think most of us can understand the need to allocate adequate resources to defend the country and keep us safe. Unfortunately the problem with W's Iraq fiasco was that it did neither. Rather, it was part of his, and by extension, God's plan to get back that bad man that tried to kill his Daddy.

I still can't believe I voted for that moron not once, but twice.

Another thing that people don't realize that is affected by cuts in government spending is jobs...

That isn't to say that fat shouldn't be cut, but there are consequences. It is why I wish this type of talk happens in better times when one can find jobs outside of the government realm. Instead, it is usually the opposite that happens.

Many have given Obama a lot of grief over the stimulus. Likewise there's also been a lot of crowing in this country over the profligacy of Greece, Ireland and other E.U. governments and the need for us to avoid their fate. However I think many in this country don't realize just how bad things could have been during this latest downturn.

The Latvians better than perhaps anyone know from personal experience that cutting govt. spending too radically can have negative effects. Just imagine how Obama would be getting skewered if instead of the stimulus plan he'd instead cut the budget to keep our debt levels down. So instead of the 10% unemployment rate we actually experienced, we instead ended up with unemployment of 20% or more. Yeah, that'd go over well. Just ask Hoover.

Interestingly, many of the people I work with have expressed similar sentiments that the govt. needs to stop spending so much. I haven't had the heart (or cojones) to remind them that their employers are receiving Federal grant $$ that more than covers their salaries. Of course all Federal spending is bad...unless it fattens your personal wallet....in which case the spending in question is an incredibly valuable program that has all sorts of benefits and should never be cut.

[Major Harris]

What I find so astounding about the last page or two is that Larry and Mardi Gras have essentially been agreeing with each other this whole time yet continue to misunderstand each other and essentially argue semantics and what the definition of "is", is.

larry goes down that road A LOT.

[Bang]

larry goes down that road A LOT.

Make up your mind. Is it a road, or a lot?

~Burp

[Fergasun]

Let me spin a tale. It's a tale about a husband and wife. Let's call the husband "Mr. Individual". Let's call the wife "Mrs. Corporation". In general, husband and wife paid the same amount as a percentage of their income for the household expenses. This seemed to be a fair arrangement. Then one day, the wife said, "I don't want to do that" and she started to pay less and less for of her income for the good of the household. In order to make up for the short-fall, the husband started paying more and more. This went on for years, and the gap between their payments as a percentage of their income widened. The wife bought all the things she wanted, lots of Prada bags, lots of shoes, pumps, all imported from Italy. The husband couldn't afford it, he was paying not only his share of expenses but also had to make up for the lack of payments for his wife. All he could afford was Direct TV NFL Sunday ticket. Finally one day the wife came home. She checked their bank accounts. She had a ton of money in hers, but just didn't want to pay any of her expenses. His was nearly drained, he could barely afford his Direct TV payments, but he could make them. The husband said to the wife, "can't you pay any more?" She looked at him with a straight face and said, "Nope, sorry... I don't want to. By the way... we can't afford Direct TV anymore, we're broke."

[shk75]

I think this is another example of how there has been a shift in American politics to the right. A common misconception is that historically Republicans have been against welfare state spending. The truth is that you really did not see this until they took control over Congress and the Senate in 1994. Programs like Medicare and Social Security have historically had very strong support from both Democrats and Republicans and Republicans even passed Medicare part D because popular support was so strong for expansion of benefits. The truth is when Republicans have tried to cut entitlement spending it has not worked well at all and programs like the Oregon plan aimed at improving cost-effectiveness ended up being political suicide.

[Seabee1973]

the only way to raise taxes is to raise them on the middle class and poor

[NoCalMike]

the only way to raise taxes is to raise them on the middle class and poor

In the current political climate, yep. Obama and the Dems had the american people on THEIR SIDE on the taxes issue, as far as not giving the wealthiest americans a tax cut, but they, especially Obama rolled over and gave in. This was even after some prominent (R)s such as Bohner finally broke down and said, "if given a choice between middle class tax cuts or no tax cuts, I will vote yes on the middle class tax cuts"

To act like the majority of Mainstream Dems are anything but Centrist wolves in Democrat clothing is being naive.

The mainstream left has been moving to the center since the 80's. Maybe not on social issues, but definitely on economic policy, and it is because there is no possibly way to combat the money that is buttering their bread. There is no alternate way to raise the amount of money the corporations donate. The Unions who are the last major contributor for the Dems are now under attack. Wisconsin is most likely just the first step.

When it comes to economic policy, the Dems might not believe in their heart they are doing what's best, but they are rolling over and doing it anyway. The same money that butters the (R) bread is right there willing to butter the (D) bread as well.

[Major Harris]

Make up your mind. Is it a road, or a lot?

~Burp

who farted?

[mardi gras skin]

the only way to raise taxes is to raise them on the middle class and poor

I don't know if its the only way but I do feel strongly that the middle class to lower middle class should pay taxes. We're a family of 4 with a mortgage and the government says we don't make enough money to pay taxes. But I have enough money at the end of the year to buy an iPad or a new piece of living room furniture or add a bathroom to my basement. My daughters take gymnastics and we go out to eat with friends on a regular basis. I get a 2 dollar coffee at Caribou or Starbucks almost every day. We give 10 to 12 percent of our income to charity. It is amazing to me that we can do all that but the government has decided people like us don't earn enough to contribute at least a little to income tax.

[Larry]

We're a family of 4 with a mortgage and the government says we don't make enough money to pay taxes.

Really? That's amazing. Tell me, how do you avoid paying FICA? Property taxes? Sales tax?

Don't know about you, but where I live, half of our utility bill is a tax. (The Utility company is owned by the county, and they intentionally overcharge for utilities. Approximately half of the money they take in, goes to the county.)

----------

On a more serious note, though. I'd bet that the reason you pay no income tax is because of those two kids. If you feel like doing an experiment, then when you do your taxes this year, tell Turbo Tax that you don't have kids, and see what it says your taxes are.

Now, whether we ought to be giving such tax breaks to people with kids, I can certainly see the debate. I'm just saying that I suspect that the reason for what you're observing isn't because middle class tax rates are too low, it's because of the deductions and credits for having kids.

[Major Harris]

I don't know if its the only way but I do feel strongly that the middle class to lower middle class should pay taxes. We're a family of 4 with a mortgage and the government says we don't make enough money to pay taxes. But I have enough money at the end of the year to buy an iPad or a new piece of living room furniture or add a bathroom to my basement. My daughters take gymnastics and we go out to eat with friends on a regular basis. I get a 2 dollar coffee at Caribou or Starbucks almost every day. We give 10 to 12 percent of our income to charity. It is amazing to me that we can do all that but the government has decided people like us don't earn enough to contribute at least a little to income tax.

you can still send them some $$ lol.

[mardi gras skin]

On a more serious note, though. I'd bet that the reason you pay no income tax is because of those two kids. If you feel like doing an experiment, then when you do your taxes this year, tell Turbo Tax that you don't have kids, and see what it says your taxes are.

Now, whether we ought to be giving such tax breaks to people with kids, I can certainly see the debate. I'm just saying that I suspect that the reason for what you're observing isn't because middle class tax rates are too low, it's because of the deductions and credits for having kids.

Yes, but we're a pretty average family. 2 kids and a mortgage. I'm sure there are a lot of Americans in our income bracket with similar deductions. It seems to me that the block of us should contribute something.

you can still send them some $$ lol.

We don't send them money but we leave a lot of money on the table. We qualify for free lunches which is even more astounding than not paying taxes. We make PLENTY enough money to feed our kids much less all the luxuries. With two kids in school, that's about $1000 a year we choose not to take from the government.