tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4161781017528873219.post2567995554469878498..comments2023-10-17T04:51:04.961-07:00Comments on Telemachus: The $14.7 Trillion National Debt Brought to You By Grover Norquist, The AARP, The US Congress And Campaign PledgesFrank Hillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13948885430465501408noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4161781017528873219.post-47856403065965600602011-06-14T17:51:47.402-07:002011-06-14T17:51:47.402-07:00Hey Nick!
I would take a CBO-scored, bonafide 10-...Hey Nick!<br /><br />I would take a CBO-scored, bonafide 10-year reduction of $10 trillion in return for a $1/tax hike on everyone in this nation, including the 50%+ who currently are not paying any income tax at all.<br /><br />$10 trillion less over-spending. $10 trillion less in debt we will send our kids into hock over. $10 trillion which is almost as much debt as we expect to ring up until 2020, regardless of who is in the WH.<br /><br />What part of this math doesn't work for you? The tax hike part of this deal account to a measly 0.0001 or a tiny 0.01% of the entire deal over 10 years.<br /><br />We would be INSANE not to take that deal and run like we stole something....<br /><br />But since insanity has prevailed to this point in time, why break the losing streak, huh?<br /><br />I respect your opinion...but in terms of caring about the Republic and the economic future of our kids and grandkids, I have to humbly submit that your way of doing it as explained in your note is precisely on point as one main reason we have dug ourselves into this massive pit of debt in the first place.<br /><br />it is categorically wrong to give up on $10 trillion in spending cuts, period. Plain and simple. Spending is our problem and til we curtail it, we will never dig our way out of this death spiral we are now in.Frank Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13948885430465501408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4161781017528873219.post-37793915819407953552011-06-12T11:13:51.244-07:002011-06-12T11:13:51.244-07:00Just to comment one one particular point, I'd ...Just to comment one one particular point, I'd actually respect a representative who refused to support a $1 tax hike in exchange for a promise for an arbitrarily large reduction in future deficits, especially in today's political reality. The reality is that promises for future "good things" rarely ever materialize, and you end up with just the tax hike, and none of the promised benefits you're "buying" with it. Just ask California about the "temporary" tax hikes they approved a couple years ago to close the budget gaps and get the state on solid fiscal footing: it's a perfect example of everything that's wrong with compromising principles striking bargains with politicians.<br /><br />An analogy, for your consideration: I think California's Prop 13 is pretty horrible for the state revenue, and the property market in general, and I'd be in favor of scrapping it, or at least significantly revising it. However, I would vote against modifying it until there was a real cap on spending, and corresponding hard-limit on total taxation. Until then, as horrible as Prop 13 is for the state revenue and people looking to buy property in California, it's worse to be an enabler for the state's spending problem, or give up this (admittedly very distortive and sub-optimal) limit on the state's ability to "redistribute" more money from it's people.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05587036619182019599noreply@blogger.com