Last updated on 2011.06.20
We've discussed how taxes under President Obama are the lowest in over fifty years. Fareed Zakaria mentions this fact as one of the ways that contemporary American conservatives are out of touch with reality:
The Republican prescription is to cut taxes and slash government spending — then things will bounce back. Now, I would like to see lower rates in the context of tax simplification and reform, but what is the evidence that tax cuts are the best path to revive the U.S. economy? Taxes — federal and state combined — as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest level since 1950. The U.S. is among the lowest taxed of the big industrial economies. So the case that America is grinding to a halt because of high taxation is not based on facts but is simply a theoretical assertion. The rich countries that are in the best shape right now, with strong growth and low unemployment, are ones like Germany and Denmark, neither one characterized by low taxes [Fareed Zakaria, "How Today's Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality," Time, 2011.06.16].
Zakaria himself is a conservative. I have my own lingering streaks of conservatism. We both find it strange that leading conservatives have fallen into the same stubborn, "woolly-headed" abstractions for which they used to have fun criticizing Marxists and tweedy liberals in general.
Update 2011.06.20 07:03 CDT: Doug Wiken agrees with Zakaria's point; Kristi Golden slavishly exemplifies it.
The only one who seems to have not fallen into that trap Corey, is Mitt Romney. To me, he seems to be attempting to bring back moderate Republicanism and sanity to the GOP. What do you think?
[CAH: An Obama–Romney tilt could offer the most serious debates on policy, if Romney can just keep from doing a McCain and throwing away his dignity for the sake of pandering to a base that doesn't pay attention to real issues. Plus, Romney takes insurance mandates off the table as a voting issue. :-)]
Germany is in good shape because they know how to manage their money. They have high taxes, but they spend responsibly. Contrast them with, say, Greece, whose taxes are also high, but ...
Taxes are indeed at a low point right now. But before we thank Obama and his administration too much, let's not forget that the debt is at an all-time high. We can't blame low taxes entirely for that. We have to come to grips with the fact that we can't manage our money, and we'd better learn how in a hurry.
We, the American people, are mature enough to decide how much we want to tax ourselves, and thereby how much we want to spend on ourselves. For some reason, however, we have a propensity for electing buffoons who lack such maturity. I think they start out with good intentions, and then some demon in the water around Washington gets into their brains and wrecks them.
I believe that the current adminstration is trying to "sucker" the American people into buying their agenda when they say, "See how low taxes are right now!" while at the same time engineering a dangerous game in which the only way out will be massive, historically unprecedented tax increases. I call this game dangerous because the entire ship might sink before the plan gets a chance to evolve.
The American people would never accept such tax increases under normal circumstances, so, in order to scare them into accepting the new socialism, they'll have to be scared by the deliberate engineering of a grossly abnormal state of affairs.
I refuse to believe the Democrats are completely stupid and delusional, which is the only alternative I see to the aforementioned "conspiracy theory."
The Dems must be at least partially stupid and delusional, however, as evidenced by their paradoxical attempts to placate a radical group whose values make ordinary social conservatism look like the hippie days all over again. I refer to their bizarre tolerance of radical Islam and the threat that it poses to the free world -- or maybe in some cases outright denial of the threat.
Yes, taxes are low. Yes, I think the Bush tax cuts were a mistake. But the biggest mistake, which really started under Bush and has only accelerated under Obama, is too much spending.
"I believe that the current adminstration is trying to “sucker†the American people into buying their agenda when they say, “See how low taxes are right now!†while at the same time engineering a dangerous game in which the only way out will be massive, historically unprecedented tax increases. I call this game dangerous because the entire ship might sink before the plan gets a chance to evolve."
Obama and the Democrats are engineering a dangerous game? The GOP nonsense coupled to demands that "compromise" means accepting their mythology is the dangerous game. They play "Calvin ball" always increasing the ante and claiming Democrats refuse to compromise.
Compromising with the current collection of GOP "conservatives" is compromising with a devil very adept at framing lies and zombie economics as the American way, etc.
Skeptic editor in Sci American discusses ideology based views of "reality". Stan's post is a classic example.
I continue to support the President, Douglas, but, Mitt Romney is looking more and more in tune with the economic problems no one seems to have a handle on.
The House Republicans are playing a dangerous game, too, no doubt about it -- a game of "chicken" that could bring about a sudden, intense calamity in the near term. I refer to the apparent willingness on the part of some GOP elements to actually advocate a default on the debt.
And then there's a version of progressivism coming from our former arch-enemy, the Russians ...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43437862
... is my irony meter showing a false positive?
Suppose a presidential candidate were to come out and propose a hike in the top marginal income tax rate to the 70 percent we saw during the Nixon years, coupled with price controls (which we also saw during the Nixon years) to prevent inflation, plus a new 15-percent value-added tax, along with drastic spending cuts such as those proposed by Paul Ryan or the Obama's own deficit commission -- all in the name of balancing the budget and getting rid of the national debt.
Such a plan would actually work in a reasonable time frame.
I wonder what proportion of the popular vote such a candidate would get?
Where does all this leave us? With two political parties, both of which call the other "uncompromising" and "delusional" (and once in a while even "demonic"), and a ship steadily heading toward a black hole. Maybe we all deserve to get swallowed up.
I think reasonable Republicans (and I do know a few, or at least remember a few) would help motivate honest debate with some honest Democrats who genuinely want to significantly reduce the growth of government spending on entitlements if they could find the intestinal fortitude to resist bowing down to their idol Grover Norquist.
Stan, if we Dems are guilty of any suckering, Paul Ryan is foisting an even greater scam, trying to sucker us into lowering taxes even further from falsely-allegedly excessive tax rates to transfer more public wealth back to the Kochs and other rich elites while public goods deteriorate and leave the poor even further disadvantaged. That's thre real scam.
We rang up this debt. We should pay for it. We've had and Germnay has higher tax rates amidst better prosperity than the current American economy. You're right: the candidate advocating higher taxes faces a hard sell. That candidate would still be right, practically and morally.
We got fooled by Reagan. Before him there was the attitude that balancing a budget was normal. But when
Reagan said, "there is no free lunch" he got peoples trust. He immediately flipflopped and said, "I can lower your taxes and balance the budget." Since we trusted him, we believed him and most republicans still believe you can lower taxes and balance the budget. This general tricking of the American mind is still costing us in lack of common sense. Republicans still think that giving the rich a tax break will boost the economy. But historically small business has always provided the most jobs.
When Reagan got in, my brother in laws father who was a multimillionaire told me, "now we can put our money in our pocket when we make it." Before they had to reinvest it to get depreciation or capital gains to be able to keep their profits. In effect the old way forced the rich to reinvest in jobs when they made a lot of money. Now with low taxes they have the option to just put it in their pocket and wait till the economy gets better before they reinvest. Any wise rich man knows you do not immediaitely invest just because you have a pocket full of money. You waite for the right situation and then invest. A bad economy is not a right situation in most cases. So low taxes can stagnate a bad economy. But general public opinion since REagan does not see this truth anymore.
Reagan was a BSer as is typical of a child of an alcoholic. They smile and talk pie in the sky and hope it works out. That is a normal method of a child of an alcoholic. We got conned by someone who did not look reality in the eye. But since he said 'there is no free lunch' we assumed he looked reality in the eye. So now we have a real big problem and no amount of smooth talking politics will fix it. We simply have to pay the bills.
The Germans weigh in ...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43459947
Wow, Stan: 52% of companies reporting difficulty in finding qualified job applicants, amidst 9.1% unemployment. The Siemens exec says we're not training people for the right jobs. And South Dakota cuts investment in education. Uff da.
Robert Reich explains in 2 minutes what's happened to the economy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/21/robert-reich-solves-economy_n_881479.html