Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  5 6 7 8 9 (9 total)
tax $$$ for public services, not private profits
03:35 PM on 04/20/2011
It's time to retire the myth that tax cuts for the rich creates jobs in the US economy. Demand creates jobs, and tax cuts for the rich do not create enough demand in the US economy. When tax rates are higher, the revenue is spent on infrastructure, education, research, health care and other activities that create jobs and demand in the US economy. It is impossible to cut spending as a path to prosperity. Cutting spending on activities that create jobs and demand in the US economy is counter productive and will not grow the economy.
Hank Rearden
Get out of the cart and help pull
04:54 PM on 04/20/2011
Demand did not create the iPhone, investment and innovation did.
06:53 PM on 04/20/2011
Hank, I assume that you are a fan of our "free market" economy. Economists more precisely call it a "market-based" or "demand-based" economy. That is, we believe that the most efficient way to allocate resources is to produce what is demanded, not what someone "thinks" we ought to produce. Was the iPhone innovative...sure. Do we need investment and innovation....of course! But Apple would not have taken a blind chance to produce it without its market studies indicating a basic demand would exist.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Liberty is more precious than safety.
06:54 PM on 04/20/2011
And investment and innovation created a lot of other products that fell on their face because of lack of demand.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:35 PM on 04/20/2011
Just more smoke.

I didn't see the Defense budget mentioned anywhere in this article - until we cut Defense by 50% none of these current discussions make any sense at all.
03:32 PM on 04/20/2011
It really comes down to two choices:

1) A United States the serves the interests of its citizens.

2)A United States that serves the interests of Transnational Corporations and their investors.

I believe the majority of Americans will agree that the first choice is the appropriate choice.

I understand that investors are terrified they will take a haircut if the United States doesn't adopt draconian austerity measures and eliminate the Social Safety net in order to funnel more taxpayer dollars into the coffers of their business interests, but that is completely acceptable. The markets are a casino, and no investor is entitled to come away the winner. I don't think the United States needs to undergo a dramatic transformation just to prevent investors from losing their shirt. And that is really what this entire "budget" debate is about.
slowly the swamp is draining
03:29 PM on 04/20/2011
lower entitlements ,,,LOWER SPENDING

03:28 PM on 04/20/2011
Slight problem with the analysis here. He is totally disregarding the fact that many, many workers have lost their jobs and have pretty much had to blow through much of was supposed to have been their "retirement". This is particularly true of older workers who have been unable to find other jobs because of rampant age discrimination. These people do not have the benefit of another couple or three decades to work and regain what they have lost. Is he suggesting that these people just curl up and die on the streets?
03:27 PM on 04/20/2011
The only reason to have the government collect taxes with which to provide health and retirement insurance is that, as a large buyer, they can get a price and R.O.I. that I as an individual can only dream about. While I can choose between a bicycle or a car, a tent or an apartment, I cannot choose whether or not to get cancer, and only hope I can choose to grow old. Mr. Gokhale premise assumes too much—steady employment at a living wage, mobility, and access to education among many other conditions.
Question authority & hold them accountable.
03:22 PM on 04/20/2011
So many things I don't know where to begin. First of all Social Security is NOT an entitlement, it is paid for my workers and the fund is solvent for the next twenty-five years. If there are any shortfalls it is because Congress continuously raids it to mask the true deficit that THEY have run up on ALL Americans. Anyone including Social Security in this debate has already lost all credibility (a.k.a. Alan Simpson & company come to mind).

Your own credibility is further eroded in the fact that you make no mention of stopping corporate welfare in the form of subsidies and tax breaks (which in itself dwarfs the "entitlements" you refer to). Additionally there's not a peep about our bloated defense budget.

Anyone ignoring defense, corporate welfare and tax cuts for the rich truly isn't serious about reducing the deficit, and that includes Obama and all of Congress, regards of party affiliation.
04:26 PM on 04/20/2011
If SS is not an Entitlemant then what is it?
Lets play some music
04:58 PM on 04/20/2011
Its Social Security, and it is unique.
03:21 PM on 04/20/2011
Jagdeesh, your bio says you are an expert on SS. I am little confused about SS ..can you explain me this?
I have been paying SS tax for the past several years (>15). Till now (my tax +employer side tax) is 160K for SS alone, not including Medicare tax. I have another 27 years to go...even with today's rate of SS pay role-tax deduction it amounts to another 270K so...amounting to 430K in total. That is only principle. if I add a 2% cumulative interest on it it comes to >500K
Even with principle if I live for another 15 years till 81 govt will have to pay me back more than 35K per year
Fact is it does not. And it cannot. so where is My money gone?” If I die will rest of the money be returned to my son? or if I die earlier than 65 will all the SS-tax money collected from me be refunded to my wife/son?
Gray Mouser
Former Republican
03:20 PM on 04/20/2011
Higher taxes, clearly, should be the choice. The so-called entitlements are already too low to do anything but keep someone out of poverty or provide minimal care to keep them alive.
Working class heritage
03:11 PM on 04/20/2011
In other words, Jagadeesh, dismantle the safety net because it encourages people to be lazy.

The fallacy that entitlements are the cause of the deficit and the sluggish economy has been more than adequately debunked elsewhere.

The United States is an extremely rich country. It's just that the money is not available either to the government nor to the 98% who are working class.

This doesn't tell me that we need more of what you call "individual freedom" and what I call the right to be exploited without limit. It tells me that we need regulation that protects working people from the predation of wealth earned off their backs, and the accumulation of capital by non-productive speculation.

There may be a way to restructure Spocial Security so that its distribution is more fair. And certainly, medical costs would be driven down drastically by a single payer system.

But dismantling programs designed to aid the working class in a time of recession will cause untoward misery.

What could you be thinking?
03:08 PM on 04/20/2011
Fixed, repaired entitlements. Not higher taxes because that hurts our economy!
Lets play some music
05:01 PM on 04/20/2011
I know you believe that, like all good Republicans. Higher taxes on the most wealthy do not hurt anything or anyone, and certainly don't reduce economic growth, as we saw very well in the 1990s under Clinton and in the 1980s when Reagan raised taxes.
Imperialism is a form of insanity.
03:03 PM on 04/20/2011
Why should we trust S&P? Didn't they give AAA ratings to junk mortgage investments? As usual, Cato offers a false choice. Why should the average tax payer bear the burden for the reckless behavior of Wall St. banks? The entitled ruling class never feels obligated to pitch in for the good of this country. It's always gimme, gimme, gimme. Well, time for the rich to pay for what they've taken from the rest of us. No austerity and no tax increases on those making $250,000 or less. Stop behaving like spoiled selfish brats.
05:14 PM on 04/20/2011
Was anyone in these rating agencies ever prosecuted or were they forced to clean house after the derivatives debacle; so now we have to "trust" their analysts; balderdash!