"Why is it erroneous to think the government's budget is different than any other budget?"
Because you personally do not set fiscal policy with what you do in your household; you do not have the interest of the "common good" as a responsibility of your intake and outgo (other than the "common good" of the people in your house); you do not have the collective power to put a lot of money together in a concentrated way and start a new CCC or WPA and fix a lot of stuff that needs fixing, thereby creating a massive number of jobs, in the public interest rather than for the private profit motive (where cost-cutting measures often threaten safety and lead to the lowest level of apparently acceptable quality, "apparent" to the average consumer who cannot possibly be expected to understand everything about the produced article or service); and about 17 other reasons that I don't have time to list in view of the fact that I doubt you'll be open to them, because it seems to me you're ideologically opposed (an honest position--I just think it's a wrong one).
As for "taxing of the wealthy" being a talking point because the definition of "wealthy" gets lower every year, I don't think so. If you think you can make a case to the common guy as to why people making over $250K a year shouldn't pay fractionally more in taxes to save the nation's economy, to put police and teachers back on the payroll, be my guest. (As I'm sure you know, the viable plans advanced by actual Democrats, as opposed to corporate Democrats, are progressive and proceed stepwise, with people making, say, $260K a year paying at only a marginally higher rate than those under $250, but those making a million a year paying at a higher percentage). If you're making a slippery-slope argument, it's as bad as almost all slippery-slope arguments. You have to draw a reasonable line somewhere. If you think it's too low, fine. Make your argument. But you're arguing two things at the same time: Progressive taxation might be OK if the "rich" line were set at the right level; or, progressive taxation is fundamentally unfair and/or unworkable.
If "any wealthy person with an accountant knows how to dodge high taxes," that's a problem with loopholes, not with the fact of taxing these people. It's not only an off-point argument, it actually suggests that wealthy people disproportionately find ways around paying their fair share.
The goose-gander argument is based on some presumption of fundamental sameness. On what basis would you say that the person trying to scratch out a living at $30K ought to pay the same rate as the guy at a million a year? You don't see any qualitative differences between the positions those people are in? Aside from the negative effect of the flat-tax position in political terms (far more people make $30K than a million), do you not think that people who are at that level of income are at some increased level of responsibility? When it comes to small businesses, for instance, whose roads do their delivery trucks drive on? Whose police force responds to a robbery or a burglary? Whose government works out trade deals with other nations, polices interstate commerce in a way that aims at fairness (again, anecdotal exceptions aside), funds the state universities from which they benefit (from an educated staff), etc.?
The rant about TPers was because what you're saying is what TPers advocate: "We need to cut the budget. Period." That's the end of the discussion with them, and according to your own language, you too.
"Class warfare" is the typical GOP labeling that you get from really good marketers (and they are _infinitely_ better than Dems at it, a total mismatch--cf. "the stimulus"). How many people thought it was "class warfare" in the '50s, when the top bracket was around 90%? I'll reiterate the earlier point: Reaganite marketing has had all the cards, all the money, all the power, and has convinced people--based on a grain of truth here and there, agencies that don't work at full efficiency, etc.--that "government IS the problem." A "tea partier" today, for instance, gets up in the morning in his house that didn't burn down because of building codes; takes his medicine that won't kill him; gets in the van that is tremendously safer than it was a generation ago; drives on public streets to get to the interstate; stops off for a McMuffin that won't kill him and is made to at least some minimum standard of food quality; arrives at the public park or the public square, and starts ranting against taxation in general and the evils of government.
The fact is, the profit motive and the "magic of the market" frequently runs against the public interest and even against individual interest. Reaganites and TPers who were appalled at the sight of refugees retreating from Katrina and finding $200 hotel rooms and $20-a-gallon gas really had no basis for complaint. No "magic market" Republican could possibly have anything to say about such a thing. "Somebody should DO something about that!", they said. But who was the "somebody"? If they want government off the backs of business, if they want business to operate unfettered by regulation, there you have it. Or, you have it in China, mostly, where you get products stuffed with whatever the manufacturers can get away with, because it's good for profits. You have it in Somalia, where freedom from government rules the day. You have it in the kinds of deals Mitt Romney used to pursue, where cutting workers was the way to profits.
Incidentally, as to the OP's original question (at the beginning of the thread), the answer is: Not well at all, because the President doesn't have the backbone to act like a traditional populist-progressive Democrat; nor, quite honestly, did he ever had the inclination. (During the entire campaign, both for the Democratic nomination and the general, I couldn't get anybody on the Democratic side to listen--among many fellow political journalists, I mean--when I insisted his history showed him to be too pro-corporate, in addition to the fact that he was nowhere near the most experienced, most qualified, or most "progressive," if that was what he was supposed to be. He had a great voice and was good with a speech. That's about it. That's still about it.) He is obsessively "centrist," more worried about his legacy as a "uniter" than he is about standing up to anybody or fixing anything, too passive, too academic, and to the right of Dwight Eisenhower (who would be called a flaming liberal) on almost any issue you can name.
At any rate, I appreciate your intelligence, your position is honest, you're not a crazed ranter, you're clearly concerned about the direction of the country, etc. I just think history and science (valid economic science, I mean) prove that what you're saying is completely wrong.
reply
share
Quanfa
13 years ago
"Because you personally do not set fiscal policy with what you do in your household; you do not have the interest of the "common good" as a responsibility of your intake and outgo..."
Two things here - fiscal responsibility for a nation should be about the same as in a household. As that goes I would argue that with each monetary decision the head of household makes affects some industry, whether its buying furniture or contributing to the betterment of the neighborhood thereby helping the home values increase. It's on a far smaller scale, but you're wrong here.
"If you think you can make a case to the common guy as to why people making over $250K a year shouldn't pay fractionally more in taxes to save the nation's economy, to put police and teachers back on the payroll, be my guest."
The better question is why should they? Why should someone be penalized with higher taxes by percentage just because he makes more money? What kind of message is that? Isn't it everybody's job to contribute?
"On what basis would you say that the person trying to scratch out a living at $30K ought to pay the same rate as the guy at a million a year?"
At 10% each they each would proportionately pay the same in taxes but the person making $250K would pay more actual money into the system (which pays for anything extra he may accrue like wear and tear to roads outside his office, etc.) You have to also consider the employment of the truck driver because of that business owner. Not only would this person pay more in taxes, the cumulative effect should be considered.
You can lump me in with a tea partier or the GOP all you want. I won't address anything they say because I'm not a member. You would be wise not to throw stones either. It doesn't help your argument because a political affiliation, no matter what it is, happens to be inconsistent. You can disagree with something I say, but don't bring in what outsiders do as a way to prove me wrong. It won't work. You'll have to do better than that.
reply
share