Conservatives are right on this one. Let's get on board . . .

[flamin lib]

Conservatives are fond of saying that we need to run our government like families have to run their households. Okay, I’m up with that. Maybe we should consider how families run their households.

A family must match their income and outgo. We all have basic needs of food, clothing and shelter. There are two ways to meet those needs; garner enough income to meet them or borrow to meet them. A prudent family will apply their talents and earn enough to meet those needs. Should the needs change, say a new baby is added, the prudent family will increase the income even if a second job is needed. Sometimes short-term events such as a car repair will require even more effort for the short term or short-term deficit spending by using credit. Never will a prudent family borrow money for every day expenses unless forced by extreme circumstances and never will a prudent family intentionally decrease its income in the face of it’s needs.

So it is with our country; it has needs. According to the Preamble to the Constitution those needs are “(to) establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” To do that the constitution in Article 1 section 8 provides that the congress “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; (and) To borrow money on the credit of the United States.”

However, since 1960 the government has steadily decreased it’s income (taxes) even as it’s needs have increased. The top marginal rate for the wealthy has decreased from a maximum of 91% (on income over $40,000,000 in 2009 money) under Eisenhower to only 35% today. Given that the top 10% of incomes control more wealth than the remaining 90% one has to ask, “Wuz up with that?” Further considering that as the population grows so do our needs and expenses engenders the question, “WTF is up with that?” Also since 1980 the maximum rate on investment income has fallen from the same as earned income to just 15% which leads one to ask, “How effin’ stupid is that?” When the country went to war in Iraq the government decreased income (taxes) even more and made up the difference by borrowing which begs to the question, “What crazy MF’er is runnin’ this place?”

In 1929, just before the great depression, the top 1% of income earners controlled 20% of the wealth. With the help of prudent tax reform, considerable oversight of the financial sector and enforcement by government agencies that number fell to 9% where it remained until 1980 and everybody propsered. Since 1980, because of de-regulation, tax policy and lack of enforcement thru starvation of agency budgets, that 1% has once again risen to control 19% of the wealth in the country. De ja vu all over again.

So, NO, we don’t need to cut spending. We need to increase income (taxes). Period, end of statement.

[abelenkpe]

1. Works for me. nt

[NoNothing]

2. We need to do both, frankly

If spending is not reined in, we will not be able to raise taxes high enough to cover our expenses.

[flamin lib]

6. True, defense is out of control and the social network is expensive BUT

if employment goes back to 4% SS and Medicare/caid funding will automatically increase by 6% and then if we removed the cap all that's taken care of.

[ixion]

3. Disagree. We need to spend the income currently collected more wisely

there would be plenty without the wars and corruption.

[flamin lib]

9. Not long term. Sure the wars and Pentagon are money sinks but

long term it will take major reform of income streams, i.e. closing loopholes in outsourcing corporate income (if the US annexed the Bahamas and took over one three story building containing nothing but P.O. boxes for US corps we could balance the budget now), balance tax revenues and, yes,some budget re-alignment.

[Warpy]

4. We most certainly do need to cut spending

and taxing the wealthy into cardboard boxes won't help us, the hole we are in is far too deep for that.

What we need to cut is the imperial military, those 700 or so bases across the world, the warehouses full of stuff from the first world war onward that the military bought to use up its budget so it could demand more the next year, the duplication of resources by the various branches of service, the outsourcing that always cost more than letting the military do the job itself, all the trappings of an Empire a post industrial country can no longer afford.

Empire is a rich man's game and in refusing to support it, they've pretty much bankrupted the country. We have to give up both a tax exempt aristocracy and their Empire if this country is to survive.

[alstephenson]

5. I couldn't agree more. Raise income taxes on the rich.

Period.

[flamin lib]

7. Not just the rich, but corporatons. 2 out of 3 large corps don't pay any US taxes. nt

[dunick]

8. Frustrating

Although I already knew about this, every time it is re-stated or I come across this information I become upset. Why was their so much de-regulation? Shouldn't people have seen this coming? It's annoying how much greed can influence a person or the decision of people.

[newtothegame]

10. All our income should go to taxes. Then we could pay for everything. nt

[flamin lib]

15. Actually we do, sort of.

While the US pays a great deal less in taxes as % of income we pay out the nose for privately provided services.

Many of the industrialized nations provide health care for which we pay $20k/year (family of two), child care ($35/day bargain priced), subsidized energy and a host of other things we expend our cash for. Yeah, we pay for other people's child care but at a super bargain rate and with government scrutiny of facilities and they pay for us old fart's health care.

It's an argument worth making. The only quibble is how much and to who for what?

[OHdem10]

11. Please do not take this wrong--but I agree with Krugman. There is

no way in the world the Government can be run effectively
and at the same time run like the family budget.

Republicans often being successful businessmen do not
even run their successful businesses like a family budget.
They are being disingenuous and trying to win a point with
a talking point.

[unblock]

12. yup. "it's clearly a budget. it's got a lot of numbers in it." and after that, the similarity ends.

the analogy is folksy b.s.


that said, the o.p.'s conclusion is correct in that, ultimately, the taxes on the rich have been cut way too much and this needs to be reversed.

[AnArmyVeteran]

13. What good businessman would spend 5 million to get a $169,300 per year job?

To do so is the worst business decision in the world. But we all know that since most of a candidate's cash comes from the rich and corporations they become whores to them, and do not represent us, we the people.

[flamin lib]

17. Both families and businesses run their budgets with deficit spending.

Home mortgages, car loans, college loans and such have always been seen as finite term debt for a life long benefit.

Running up the credit cards to get a 50 inch HDTV and entertainment system at Rent-2-Own is like financing two wars with Chinese loans.

One makes sense and one doesn't. One is sound judgment and one is foolish.

[The_Commonist]

14. I've NEver once heard a Republican say...

...that we should run the government like a household.
I've ONLY heard them say that we should run government like a business.
And that's exactly what they do.
Unfortunately...

[flamin lib]

16. When it comes to a balanced budget I hear it a lot.

You can't print your own money or steal your neighbor's so why should the government? They always say that families cut spending when they run out of money but that only goes so far which means some people take 2-3 jobs to make ends meet.

In the 50's one income could support a family of 4 and get a new car every 3 years and take a two week vacation to see the Grand Canyon etc.

Can't happen now, it takes two incomes to raise a family. Government should raise more income too, not cut down on it.

[RM33]

18. Wrong

Even liberal economists will say that there is a breaking point at which point raising taxes any further will result in a diminishing rate of return. If taxes are to high, people will spend most of their time dodging taxes.

Second there is a lot of waste in government. Case in point. Corporate welfare. Any business that requires handouts to stay afloat is not a legitimate business. All those tax cuts and cash subsidies need to go.

Having an optimal level of taxes with lean government is the way to go.

[flamin lib]

19. It worked pretty well between 1934 and 1980. Care to dispute that?

What is the optimal level of taxes? So low that the government has to borrow to function? That's where we are now. We've been cutting taxes on the wealthy and big business for 50 years and where has it gotten us? In debt up to our neck to China.

It has gotten to the point that the government cannot meet it's most basic needs. Take border control for instance. GWB promised 6000 new ICE border guards twice and sure enough ICE let the requisitions for those hires. Only thing is there was never any funding for them. Sure, you can have 6000 more on patrol IF you can find 6000 people willing to pay for their own training, buy their own uniforms and work for free.

Wrong? Naaaaa. Absolutely right.

Enjoy your stay.

[RM33]

21. Its a different world.

If people do not change their behavior when taxes go up, why not tax people at 100%? Or how about 99%? At what point do you think that people reach the breaking point and refure to pay?

This is not the 1930's. It's a different world. Taxes is more style that substance. In the past American's tolerance for taxes was high. Not today. Recently in my state of NJ Governor Corzine was voted out of office because "taxes were to high". And this came from a liberal state like NJ.

I remember one Senator who said it the best ( I think it was Roberty Bryd ). In the past, people got regular pay raises at work. The middle class felt rich and they were generous. Today, with stagnat wages, people substitue taxes cuts for regular pay raises. The cost of living keeps going up but not their salaries. So where are they going to get to money to pay for everything? Tax cuts.

And to make the rich pay more? Fuggedaboudit. They just lock up their money overseas where the IRS can't get to it. Or just invest in tax shelters like tax free Muni's.

The best way to tax people is to make it fair. If people can justify it in their minds then they are more willing to pay it. Less tax dodging. Try to squeeze every drop of blood out of people and they will respond in a negative way.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

20. You lost me at "Conservatives are right". Then you got me again at

"A family must match their income and outgo.". :)

[saras]

22. Yes, but

Yes, the country needs a transfusion, but first we have to sew up the severed arteries...

How long does it take to clear the saboteurs out of the government and fill it with people committed to doing the job they are hired to do? Not much use in giving money to people who believe in using it to destroy their organizations...

So, as soon as we have the laws, and the committed enforcers in place, to see that the money is spent on those goals INSTEAD of the diametrically opposed goals it is currently being spent on, then I will happily support raising the money.