There aren't enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending ~ VP candidate and United States Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district Paul_Ryan (dob 1/21/1970) dissembles during the VP debate on 10/11/1012.
The following from blogger Willis Hart, a self described "Moderate", regarding the VP debate on Thursday 10/11/2012...
| Willis Hart: Martha Raddatz asked Vice President Biden a very simple question tonight. She asked him what, other than raising taxes on the wealthy, would the Obama administration do to reduce the budget deficit. His hysterical response... was, "Just let the Bush tax-cuts for millionaires expire!" That was it. ...if [Biden] thinks that that's all that's necessary, then he is a total frigging idiot. (10/11/2013 AT 7:29pm). |
Why? Because of the simple fact that raising taxes on the wealthy won't come close to making up the budget shortfall (he agrees with Paul Ryan, in other words). But what this "Moderate" fails to take into account is the positive effect that raising taxes on the wealthy will have on the economy. The government needs this money for programs to create jobs and stimulate the economy.
Historical data shows that during the times when taxes were the highest the economy did the best. In a 7/10/2010 article that asked the question, are low taxes exacerbating the recession, David Sirota points out that, "though the Reagan zeitgeist created the illusion that taxes stunt economic growth, the numbers prove that higher marginal tax rates generate more resources for the job-creating, wage-generating public investments (roads, bridges, broadband, etc.) that sustain an economy.
They also create economic incentives for economy-sustaining capital investment [because] the easiest way wealthy business owners can avoid high-bracket tax rates is by plowing their profits back into their businesses and taking the corresponding write-off rather than simply pocketing the excess cash and paying an IRS levy".
So, no, Joe Biden was not an idiot to emphasize the fact that raising taxes on the wealthy would reduce the budget deficit. It would, in fact, raise much more than the 70 billion dollars a year that the "Moderate" says can't possibly make much of a difference. This "Moderate" is in favor of gutting entitlements, raising the retirement age, and otherwise placing the burden of paying our debts largely onto the backs of the middle class and poor.
This "Moderate" fully endorses the Bowles-Simpson proposal that includes cutting the corporate tax rate and benefits for seniors. Regarding the proposal, commission member Rep. Jan Schakowsky said "Bowles-Simpson is touted by inside-the-Beltway pundits who think that cutting benefits for seniors who have an average income of $22,000 a year is the type of hard choice we need to be making". Schakowsky concluded "we should not and need not reduce the deficit on the backs of seniors and others who survive on a low income".
Schakowsky presented her own plan that increased government investments to grow the economy. This represents the Liberal perspective regarding capitalism. Capitalism is a flawed system of which results in wealth concentrating at the top. The solution isn't the other extreme (socialism), but a mixed system in which the government intervenes to level the playing field and prevent total plutocracy via redistributive programs.
Yet "Moderates" and Conservatives still buy into the fairy tale that is supply-side economics. Even though Reagan's OMB director David Stockman admitted that Reagan's tax cut was a "Trojan horse to bring down the top rate", we keep voting Republicans into office who want to cut taxes and deregulate. bush did it and the result was the Great Recession. Now Romney says that, because Obama didn't turn things around fast enough, the answer is more failed voodoo economics!
Although "Moderates" seek to strike a balance between raising taxes and slashing entitlement programs. But I agree with Rep. Schakowsky, who said "the plan [Bowles-Simpson] is anything but balanced". Any plan that proposes small tax increases (nobody dares suggest anything higher than the Clinton rates) and cuts in investments and entitlement programs isn't balanced or "moderate" in my opinion. It's Conservative.
Joe Biden was right to emphasize the necessity of raising taxes, especially with the fiscal cliff looming. The Democrats MUST not buckle under again and make a deal that does not include tax INCREASES on the wealthy, although drastically cutting military spending is, I think, a close second (so Joe Biden could have mentioned that, and did not). But that isn't what the "Moderate" wanted to hear. In his mind the only "serious" solution to bringing down the deficit is to cut entitlement cuts and raise the retirement age; and with that assessment I must disagree completely.
Proposals like Bowles-Simpson would hurt the middle class and negatively impact the economy, but the "Moderate" instead focuses on the "unfairness" of "taking" too much of a wealthy individual's income (it is, in fact, the primary focus of his blog). Me, I don't know how someone can call themselves "moderate" when they worry SO MUCH about the wealthy being "overtaxed". That's what Conservatives do.
That is one of the responses the "Moderate" post received. A conservative who calls himself "dmarks" described Obama's desire for the tax rates (at least for the wealthy) to go back to where they were under Clinton as "unnecessary" and "greedy". I say it is greedy to cut programs that benefit the middle class and poor, whether the advocate for that course of action is a "Moderate" who thinks taxes could be raised a few percentage points (but entitlement cuts are a necessity) or a Conservative who is dead set against any tax increase (and plans on voting for Romney and tax cuts).
