Thursday, July 01, 2010
This guy is on your side:Obama's Deficit Commission has two co-chairmen, Republican Alan Simpson, who wants to slash entitlements, and Democrat Erskine Bowles who ... Erskine Bowles, the Democratic co-chairman of the bipartisan White House Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, floated a long-term goal of reducing federal spending to about 21% of U.S. gross domestic product, slightly above the recent norm but significantly lower than current spending projections.
While praising Democrats' recent health-care overhaul for expanding access to services, Mr. Bowles also emphasized the need to find significant savings in federal health spending and other entitlement programs. If not, he added, "it will just consume the budget."
Fellow panel member Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.), the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, termed the discussions "productive."
"The explosive growth of government spending is clearly the problem, and I was encouraged by the growing consensus around this obvious reality," Mr. Ryan said later in a written statement. "other entitlement programs" probably means Social Security.
posted by Quiddity at 7/01/2010 08:50:00 AM
7 comments
And so you can see how perfectly this all fits with the long-term GOP plan for governance. Back in 2000 when Clinton ran surpluses, that made it imperative to cut taxes on the wealthy because they were so heavily burdened by taxes.
Now that we're running record deficits, it's imperative to cut taxes on the wealthy to boost the economy--AND we must increase regressive taxes like the payroll tax while slashing benefits so we can balance the budget.
And just as soon as we achieve budget balance, that will signal that it's time to once again slash taxes n the wealthy.
In an ideal world, the rich pay no taxes at all and become an exclusive protected class entitled all all government benefits and services. The rest of us simply work to support the rich.
Q...no one is on our side.
In an ideal world, the rich pay no taxes at all and become an exclusive protected class entitled all all government benefits and services. The rest of us simply work to support the rich.
As opposed to the current situation, where the poor pay no taxes at all and are an exclusive protected class entitled to all government benefits and services, while the "rich" more and more simply work to support the idle.
Either both are fair or neither.
The poor pay taxes too and you know that very well. FEDERAL INCOME TAX IS NOT THE ONLY TAX THERE IS. But it is very well known that it is mandatory for your side to bring up the talking point on every possible occasion. You forget to mention btw (despite it being also mandatory) that illegal immigrants pay no taxes but suck the US dry by bathing in SS funds.
HB
I'll trade earlier Anonymous: I would MUCH rather be a millionaire paying heavy taxes--even up to 90% on the first $10,000 per year--than to be one of those lucky duckies trying to raise a family on $18,000 per year.
Even with the most generous government benefits, it's a pretty fucking grim existence. But I'd bet our millionaire friend is also bawling his eyes out trying to get by on only $1,000,000 a year after taxes.
Alan Simpson may be long but he is also short.
Looks like the Democrats are going to push the knife through Social Security's back this November. SS was a lot more popular with Democrats when it was bringing in excess money to spend.
|
