The Glade 4.0

Note that, in practice, this isn't actually a false dilemma. Sure, in theory we could lower spending to the point that it would be possible to balance the budget while keeping taxes low, but in practice, there's nowhere near enough public support to push through the level of spending cuts that a cuts-only approach would require. So, dealing with the world as it is, there's a tension between the twin conservative goals of lower taxes and balanced budgets. I'm curious which goal people here think should take priority.

You can't do both?

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

The government's current tax revenue is the lowest it's ever been since WWII, less than 15% of GDP.

Balancing the budget is 100% more important. IMHO, cutting taxes and not cutting spending is worse than increasing spending while leaving taxes the same. At least when you do the latter the money stays in the United States, when you do the former the extra money just gets hoarded (like the banks that aren't lending or the businesses making record profits but not hiring) or gets invested in East Asia.

Oh yeah, and lowering taxes without cutting spending doesn't actually lower taxes.

There's a false dilemma there, but have fun setting up your strawman for whoever is stupid enough to answer the poll.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Youre not taking into account that the government is spending money on programs and items that it has no right to. Fund the actual responsibilities. Ensure the programs which the goverment truly should be managing are done correctly and solvent. There should be no surplus when it comes to taking peoples tax money.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

He's askign which is a priority, not saying "if you can only do one or the other, which do you do?" Something being a priority doesn't mean that's the only thing you do.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Sure it is, they're not mutually exclusive unless you refuse to cut spending.

It doesn't take public support, just determination on the part of the representatives.

Sorta like Obamacare, but in reverse.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Obamacare was never as unpopular as major cuts to Social Security and Medicare (which is what would be required for an all-cuts approach). In fact, the more specific you got about what Obamacare involved, the more public support went up; whereas the more specific you get about cutting spending, the more public support goes down. Moreover, for all the philosophical objections one can raise to Obamacare, its direct impact on people's daily lives isn't nearly as significant as the direct impact that major cuts to SS and Medicare would have, meaning the political blowback to the latter would be much, much stronger.

For the purposes of this thread, I'm not arguing whether that's good or bad; I'm just saying that's the way it is. It's wishful thinking to believe it's politically possible to get to balance through cuts alone; just as it's wishful thinking on the part of liberals to think we can get there through nothing but tax increases on the wealthy. Neither of those things will happen. So, given that reality (call it an assumption if you must), I'm just curious whether people here would prefer to compromise on taxes or deficits.

Obamacare was unpopular with the majority. After it reaches that point, HOW unpopular is irrelevant ... the representative won't get reelected anyway, as we saw in the last election.

As far as what is and isn't possible, I suggest we stay tuned. I'm thinking we'll see some things considered impossible before it's over.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Then he's asking the wrong question.

"If you can only do one to balance the budget, which should be the priority: raise taxes, or cut spending?"

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Why is he asking the wrong question by asking which you prioritize?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

He is assuming that increasing taxes or maintaining their current level is the only way to balance the budget. He is assuming that spending can not be reduced.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Close - I'm assuming that spending cannot be reduced enough to balance the budget. We could get part of the way there, but not all the way (as evidenced by the debt ceiling fight); and given the political situation, I believe the gap will remain quite large for the foreseeable future. So, on that basis, I'm wondering whether Gladers' preference would be to refuse tax increases and live with the deficit or to close the gap and live with tax increases.

He's also comparing an end to a means.

Well, I suppose, for some liberals, increasing taxes IS an end...

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

If you want to use GDP as the benchmark:
In 1949 the tax revenue was a lower percentage of GDP, and the Federal Government ran a surplus.
In 1950 it was even lower, and the Gov't only ran a deficit 1.1% of GDP.
In 2009 government spending was the highest it's ever been (as a percentage of GDP).
In 2010 government spending was the highest it's ever been except for 1946 (as a percentage of GDP).
In 2009 the Gov't ran a deficit that was 10% of GDP.
In 2010 the Gov't ran a deficit that was 8.9% of GDP.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

How so, Kaffis? Aren't lower taxes and balanced budgets both "ends" for conservatives?

My point was not that spending isn't too high. Of course spending is far too high. My point was that taxes are not too high. Taxes are lower now than when Eisenhower was President, and he's the President widely considered to have the best fiscal policy of the 20th century. So the assertion that "taxes are way too high as it is, we have to fix the spending problem with cuts only" is just ridiculous.

I would prioritize balancing the budget over any tax cuts at this point, but I'm in the camp that thinks this poll should be collecting disability compensation, because it's obviously afflicted with some disease...

Lower taxes aren't an end. It's a means to two ends.

A balanced budget with reduced spending is one.

A healthy economy where the market gets to keep the bulk of the money earned in (pseudo-)rational actors rather than trusting a centralized economic overlord to **** things up and waste it.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Okay...RD used that figure the other day, and I skewered it then, and I will do it again now.

%age of GDP is a useless measure. How does tax revenue fair as an absolute figure? Go ahead, and even adjust it for inflation. How does it fair then? It may still be low right now, you're in a bit of economic trouble for the last few years, but still, "less than 15% of GDP" tells us NOTHING, since GDP is not an indicator that should have any bearing on government spending or the budget.



Agreed, 100%. Cutting spending and balancing the budget (even paying off the debt) need to be your government's primary concern.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Percentage of GDP is a better measure than trying to adjust 1950s taxation for inflation, because nobody can even remotely agree on what the inflation rate has actually been.

It's still utterly useless since there is no appropriate "percentage of GDP" that government should be collecting. If your GDP goes up 300%, but tax revenue as a percentage of GDP goes down 50%, you're still collecting 50% more tax than you were before.

Just because one figure is too difficult to acquire, doesn't suddenly make another figure relevant.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_system_in_China



Just for comparison's sake.

lol...and they've taken "control of the means of production."

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Here is the simple truth:

The United States of America does not have, nor has it ever had, a revenue problem.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.