Comments on: Dead-In-The-Water Debt Commission

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 13:11:49 +0000

Concerning Mellon and Kennedy era tax rates: I am perplexed as to the significance of the actual tax rates during the 20s and the 60s. Whether the rates were 15, 70, or even 90 percent for corporate or personal income, it still remains too much.

With regards to tax cuts and increased spending: It’s supposed to be tax cuts as well as spending cuts.

Lastly, in response to America’s World Democracy Tours, I agree; withdrawing all troops from foreign soil would not present an existential threat.

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 04:26:28 +0000

At the time of the Mellon comment, the top tax rate had gone to 70%

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3015

And the top tax rate in 1962 was 91%.

But the “cut taxes and increase spending” [e.g. the bipartisan approach] was tried all through the Republican Bush hegemony years of 2001 – 2007 with little growth and doubling of the national debt. Middle class income even declined slightly while home prices got inflated.

Now the bipartisan compromise is – keep tax rates low (good if spending is low)
and increase unemployment benefits while keeping on wasting a trillion $$ a year on the Global Empire. In other words – KEEP LIVING BEYOND OUR MEANS.

If this country wants to make war all over the globe, then it should pay for it! Meanwhile, a captial gains rate of 15% or 20% is hardly going to stop someone from investing money the way a 91% rate would be likely to.

By: Robert Glisson

Robert Glisson — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 00:16:48 +0000

” Fully offset the cost of the ‘Doc Fix’ by asking doctors and other health providers, lawyers, and individuals to take responsibility for slowing health care cost growth” BUT leave in Obamacare? No way in Hell will that work.
“Imagine an alcoholic, addict, or serial rapist appointing a commission on how to stop his behavior and you have the government and the debt commission” You forgot to mention that the commission is also made up of ‘Alcoholics, Serial Rapists, etc. How many rabbits do you need to guard the carrot patch?

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 00:04:01 +0000

Michael – when JFK spoke that, the tax rates were either 70% or 90% on high income people and the budget was close to being in balance. There was no Medicare/Medicaid/Bushcare/Obamacare – and only a very small elderly population. To think that cutting taxes further when the deficit is already $ 1,400,000,000,000 each year is going to kick start the economy is rather silly.

The uncertainties of defaults, foreclosures, bankruptcies, hyperinflation, and massive debt is a sword of Damocles hanging over all investments. That – and not 20% capital gains tax rates – is what is causing the mess – and addition debt will not solve it.

By: Steve Hogan

Steve Hogan — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 22:07:06 +0000

Jeff, your analogy doesn’t work. The people in question don’t know how to weigh bricks. They know nothing about bricks or anything else for that matter. To expect that they’ll figure out who is making the mistake, admit it, and change their ways is not going to happen. We’re talking about politicians here, not rational, intelligent, humble people.

It should be obvious to everyone: our government is out of control. The people running it, with very few exceptions, have never had a legitimate job before. They are ignorant about the constitution, the law, economics, finance, history, logic, or morality. They can’t fix an economy, because the economy cannot be centrally planned. Since they don’t know how wealth is produced, how can anyone expect them to somehow stumble across the solution?

The solution is for them to get out of the way and allow the market to function. They’re too stupid and stubborn to permit this. Thus, they seem intent on turning a recession into a sovereign debt crisis, followed by a hyperinflationary depression.

When that happens, the empire ends (finally!), the social safety nets vanish, and our standard of living gets crushed. The good news: they’ll be a lot of unemployed public sector workers with worthless pensions.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 14:16:36 +0000

Listening to various Senators and Congressmen comment on this report reminds me of the health care reform debate. The salient features are: the problem is so bad we MUST do something NOW and this plan is not perfect but it is better than nothing. The goals of the plan are hardly stretch goals. 10 or 20 years out we will be almost down to current levels of spending.
Must we govern this way? One large, all encompassing, hard to understand bill which is of necessity a compromise? We need to stop and think about why compromise, is this situation, is bound to yield a less than good or maybe even bad result. I you and I each weigh the same brick and I get 2 pounds and you get 3 pounds, do we “compromise” and say the brick weighs 2.5 pounds? No, we figure out who made an error and weigh the brick again the right way because if we are going to build a building and use our compromise weight the building will either fall down or be over-constructed. I’d rather see us use the ideas in this report as a guide to a legislative plan that develops over the next several years combined with guidelines for new spending that converge towards reducing the deficit.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 14:01:42 +0000

When necessary, Congress forgets the apotheosized:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

By: james huggins

james huggins — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 13:40:51 +0000

Frankly I’m worried about Steve Hogan. He sounds like me. I hope someone’s keeping an eye on him. These “groups” are a complete farce. They meet to come up with solutions to problems after being instructed by Obama about what not to cut. (Obamacare anyone.)

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 13:36:44 +0000

Spending cuts and tax increases…50-percent right is quite well for Congress.

By: Steve Hogan

Steve Hogan — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 05:31:00 +0000

Anyone that seriously believed this commission was anything other than a pointless exercise should probably be institutionalized.

The group’s primary mission? To fool the American rubes into believing our government would understand the problem, then do something meaningful about it. Their recommendations are too little, too late, and are being consigned to obscurity. Politicians will do what they always do: kick the can down the road. Extend and pretend.

Time to face facts. We are in for a very hard landing. The standard of living in this country is going to suffer like very few can possibly imagine. Our elite, in their quest for power, are turning this once great country into a banana republic.

If you are not actively preparing for the crash, you frankly deserve what’s coming.