GOP stops additional deficit reduction

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Jul 23, 2010.

  1. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #1
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100722/ap_on_bi_ge/us_senate_energy

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100722/ap_on_bi_ge/us_senate_energy

    So, the GOP once again is against deficit reduction. Next time some right-winger argues about fiscal responsibility, remember this story.

    (edit) By the way, can anyone point me to a GOP proposal in the last 20-30 years that was fiscally responsible? I'm sure they exist, but I'd be interested in what y'all come up with.
     
  2. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #2
    What do expect from a GOP hater. Put a correct title on it.
    Come on at least look at the reasons they would not want to support this bill. This bill was full of cap and trade something I know is the GOP is against.
     
  3. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #3
    Title is absolutely correct. The health care bill was rated to reduct the deficit. The GOP opposed it. This bill is rated to reduce the deficit, and the GOP is against it.

    What am I missing?

    (edit) I'm not arguing about the value of cap and trade, but just the fact that it would reduce the deficit.
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    They didn't all used to be against it. Several prominent GOP members used to support cap and trade. They seem to have flip flopped on the issue right around January 20th 2009 for some reason.
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    Well, you forgot that they also want to extend the Bush tax cuts without offsetting their cost.
     
  6. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #6
    Cost?

    Cost?

    How does not getting something "Cost" anything?
     
  7. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #7
    If I have heart disease and need medication, I have to spend something to get it, but the COST of not doing it is my life.

    Understand now?

    Ok, how about this specific example. Cap and trade would do many things, but it would reduce the deficit by increasing revenues and reducing costs. The "cost" of not passing it is increased costs with no increases in revenue.

    Still don't get it? I'll see if I can find some info online for you. (PDF http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt146.pdf)
     
  8. thetexan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    #8
    It would reduce the deficit by increasing the costs for businesses to do business. That, in turn, is another tax on consumers.

    If my power company has to pay the government an additional $100,000,000 per year in taxes to consume carbon, they're not going to take that from their profits. They'll get that money from the people paying their bill.

    The deficit equation has two sides, revenue and spending. A better way to reduce the deficit is to cut spending. I'm looking at the military as a place to begin.
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    Smartest thing you've ever said. I agree.
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    Look at it this way. You have a job that pays you $100k per year. You have household expenses of $90k per year. You make a decision to forgo $20k of your income and return it to your boss, who will then use it to make refunds to your company's customers.

    So you've "not gotten something". Do you think it will cost you?

    Ok, but lets say that your electric company buys carbon credits from several smaller non-carbon intensive businesses that are then able to pass that savings on to the customer, which offsets their increased electrical cost?

    Further, it puts in place an incentive for the power company to invest in much cleaner production methods. If a power company can sell power cheaper than it's competitors because it's got a lower carbon footprint, the free market will send more business their way.

    And let's suppose that the reduction in general emissions that accompanies the reduction in carbon use starts lowering incidences of asthma, or other health related issues, which has the practical effect of lowering health care costs in the aggregate?

    Focusing on what cap and trade would do to a single industry is the wrong way to look at it.
     
  11. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #11
    Mactastic, McCrain; what are you talking about?? I am not looking to debate the merit of the bill, I was merely pointing out that mactastic's assertion that Bush tax cuts COST the government money is incorrect.

    Lets look at it even more simply: I normally give you 30 dollars a week. This week I do not give you $30. It did not cost you anything.


    And I agree about cutting the defense budget. Cut the defense budget and put the savings towards alternative energy R+D. That we we don't need even need to dabble with the "Carbon Credit" nonsense.
     
  12. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #12
    Simple question -- all else being equal, does the deficit increase if we extend the Bush tax cuts? Or does it not affect government finances at all?
     
  13. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #13
    Let's assume you are fiscally irresponsible and run up $15,000 of unsecured debt on your credit cards. You have a full time job and a part time weekend job that you use to barely pay your debts.

    Choosing to stop the part-time job will affect your ability to pay your debts. When the GOP decided to run up the debt, they committed this country to paying for it. They can't now decide to give away the income generated from taxing the wealthy. That's just bad economic policy.
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    Let's also not forget how we got to this point too -- When the GOP enacted these tax cuts, they did so without offsetting their cost in any way.

    Not only did they shirk their fiscal responsibility in that regard, but the Bush tax cuts were enacted through the budget reconciliation process -- which was, of course, ramming things down the throats of Americans when Democrats did it with HCR, but I digress -- in order to minimize the influence of Democrats on the legislation. One of the requirements for using reconciliation is that the legislation in question cannot increase the deficit outside the ten-year budgetary window. So what did the GOP do? They enacted the tax cuts through reconciliation, and sunset them ten years. At the time they were giddy on permanent Republican majority fumes. They figured they would simply use their majority status to re-up the tax cuts, or they would hammer the Democrats about raising taxes to get them to do it.

    Then they took the CBO score and hyped it, which because it only scored the 10-year window never gave a full accounting of the effect on the long-term deficit.

    As a reminder:
     

    Attached Files:

  15. Zyniker macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #15
    Even without going through his other comments to figure out what else he's said, I can say with confidence that calling for a reduction in military expenditures is probably one of the least informed things he's ever said on this site. Reducing military spending is a horrible idea. The reasons for this are patently obvious, but this seems to be a debate that refuses to die. Go look at the actual budget numbers before complaining about how much money goes toward the military.

    Could some military programs be cut? Of course they could, but the overall level of military spending should not be reduced. If anything, the military, like NASA (but that's another matter), is underfunded.
     
  16. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #16
    How much should we spend on our military? More than any of our (potential) enemies? How about more than our (potential) enemies combined? How much is enough?

    Why do we have military bases in Japan? Are we planning on invading China with 30,000 troops?

    The military is spending massive amounts on policies from the end of the cold war which just don't apply anymore. We need to grow up and start looking at things from today's perspective, not the perspective of our parents and grandparents.
     
  17. Zyniker macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #17
    Must be a nice world in which you live. Devoid of enemies who would sooner see you dead than leave you to your desired peace, I presume? Unfortunately, we do not presently have a lack of enemies. The reason we need to continue to spend a significant portion of our budget on the military can be summed up in one word: research. We have to stay ahead of current and future enemies. There is also the small fact that, unless you're exceedingly fond of war, possessing technology that is vastly superior to your would-be enemies tends to act as a deterrent.

    For reference, the majority of the US budget goes to social spending:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg.
    56.74% of the budget for the top four social spending categories alone.
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #18
    So anyone who sees the military budget as bloated automatically assumes we have no enemies?

    Nice straw man you've constructed there. Go ahead and use an F-22 to destroy it...
     
  19. thetexan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    #19
    There's a lot of waste in the military, just ask anyone who is or has recently served. I'm guessing that we could roll up our sleeves and cut a large chunk of the military's budget without actually changing our battle-ready metrics at all.

    I remember on September 10, 2001 how it was reported there was over a trillion dollars of military money that simply can't be accounted for.
     
  20. Zyniker macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #20
    Nice of you to ignore my contention on research. You also seem to have completely ignored the programs to which the majority of the budget is dedicated. Why not cut some of them? Unless, of course, you're fond of the massive Ponzi scheme we've termed "Social Security"...
     
  21. Zyniker macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #21
    That's an argument for better accounting and more efficient spending, not cuts.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    As opposed to the massive wealth transfer scheme we've termed "the military-industrial complex" that you appear to be so fond of?

    I mean, as long as we're just spitting out epithets in place of arguments...
     
  23. Zyniker macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    #23
    Actually, I linked to data and made a number of arguments that went unaddressed. Further, I agree with the two of you on at least on point: there is waste in the current military budget. However, I do not believe that is an argument for reducing the military's budget; it is an argument for reducing the waste in that budget.
     
  24. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #24
    Agreed, it will take both raising taxes and spending cuts to tackle the deficit. The military budget would be a good place to start cutting spending. But it should not be the only place where cuts take place.

    Unfortunately, I don't see the political will from either party or the majority is Americans to be serious about cutting spending.
     
  25. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #25
    This is unfortunately very true.
     

Share This Page