Dennis Spivack wants to Raise Your Taxes..
At least he's not shy about it. From today's Delaware State News:
This is the alternative we're supposed to entertain to Mike Castle?
Mr. Spivack said his campaign would focus on reducing the number of Americans without health insurance, increasing energy conservation by supporting alternative energy sources and balancing the federal budget without slashing services."Slashing services" is oherwise known in the real world as "cutting spending." So, if you're not going to cut spending, and you want to balance the budget, what do you do? Raise taxes and raise 'em often, and stifle the economy. The Bush tax cuts raised federal receipts. In other words, the tax rates were lower, but more money came in due to the prosperity and growth created. The problem here is not on the revenue side, it's on the expenditure side. By not understanding that, Dennis Spivack has proven already that he has no clue.
This is the alternative we're supposed to entertain to Mike Castle?
posted by delathought at 11:45 AM
15 Comments:
“I believe it comes from feeling that we have somehow lost touch with our sense of being an American. We’ve lost the notions of true democracy, of justice, freedom, fairness and even compassion.
“But as Americans, we are not afraid of the future. We never have been. And that’s why we must meet the future head on with strong, positive and honest change.”
This sounds like his whole platform. The Dems are simply going to try to tug at heartstrings in these elections. They think that they can bleat about a war they consider unjust, and the people will deliver the seats to them.
The problem with that philosophy? They tried it last time, and lost seats. Americans want ideas, not petty retorts. The Dems have shown throughout the last few years that all they want to do is oppose Republicans, yet that leaves them with no novel positions on anything, simply as Bush haters.
I mean, energy prices would be a big-ticket item to run on. Why not give the DSN a quote or two about your proposed changes, Dennis? That's right, you don't have any. You just think a platform containing one buzzword, "change," is going to win you the election. You'd better start coming up with some positions.
If I were a Democrat interested in running for office, I'd love to run against Castle. Not so much because I thought I'd have a chance to beat him, but because of the opportunity to make state-wide contacts throughout the party, I could call on in a future bid for office. I know in the GOP, we've often been willing to support someone who "took one for the team" for a smaller office in the future.
The Democrats also need to know what I told one of Carper's now former staffers when were both still in college: if the Democrats are serious about being Castle, run to his right. They'll pick up many disaffected GOP votes and their base will likely stay with them just to get rid of a Republican. They may not be able to win that way, but I bet Castle would be held below 60%. (Well, 65% maybe.) Plus this would help them broaden their base a bit and possibly bring back some disaffected conservative Democrats who fled to the GOP.
They couldn't do worse than they are now and might strengthen their position for the future.
There's no real evidence that receipts went up because of the tax cuts. Yes, they went up for one period of time after lagging, but there's no way to prove that one caused the other. Its not like Bush is anywhere near on his way to a balanced budget. Cutting taxes, particularly for the wealthy, during wartime is NEVER going to balance a budget.
Give Spivack a chance - of course he doesn't have a 200 page platform written out yet - he just declared. Then again, it wouldn't matter if he did; Republicans said Kerry had no platform when he published a book called "Our Plan for America." Gee, I wonder what that was about...
Taxes were cut. Receipts went up. That's all the evidence I need.
Cutting taxes, particularly for the wealthy, during wartime is NEVER going to balance a budget.
You're right. Cutting spending, or in Democratic parlance, starving old people and impoverishing children, is how you balance a budget.
I'm not saying Spivack doesn't have a platform, I'm just repeating what he said and explaining what that actually means.
Cutting spending, or in Democratic parlance, starving old people and impoverishing children, is how you balance a budget.
Republicans are not in any position to lecture Democrats, or anybody else, on how to balance a budget.
It happened once - have you ever considered the hundreds of other factors that affect the economy that might have changed in that single quarter where this occurred? Reagan cut taxes - the debt climbed. It continued to climb under Bush senior. The defecit reached zero and went into surplus status under Clinton. Then Bush comes, cuts taxes, and now we again have the largest defecit in history. "That's all the evidence I need."
"I'm just repeating what he said and explaining what that actually means."
--yes, because you clearly know what he means better than he does. I don't think he does have much of a platform yet, but I'm willing to give him a chance to explain himself.
Just a side note - cutting social programs doesn't magically solve problems - it creates more of them. Crime goes up, abortions increase with poverty. Do some programs need reform? Yes, but just scrapping them isn't helping anybody. A true moderate, which apparently Castle is not, would understand that.
The problem here is not on the revenue side, it's on the expenditure side.
There will never be a conservative elected who cuts taxes, and then cuts spending enough to balance the budget. The "tax cuts for the rich" policy ALWAYS goes hand-in-hand with massive deficits. The same special interests who support the upper-bracket tax cuts also support the deficit spending. It's part of the same package.
I am continually amazed that despite the neo-socialist Bush's 48% growth in spending in 6 years, the largest entitlement since LBJ, and his federalization of education via biggest percentage increase in education spending since LBJ, that the left still dislikes his domestic agenda.
That's ok, I dislike it too. And I agree, Republicans will never balance the budget, unless we vote their butts out again. These reasons are why, barring a sea-change, I'll be pulling the Libertarian lever(s) or staying home in 2008. Wasted vote, but I won't feeling like purging and showering afterwards.
Oh yeah, Libertarian instead of Castle in '06, just like I have every other time.
I am continually amazed that despite the neo-socialist Bush's 48% growth in spending in 6 years, the largest entitlement since LBJ, and his federalization of education via biggest percentage increase in education spending since LBJ, that the left still dislikes his domestic agenda.
The left has changed since LBJ, Rip Van Winkle. Although LBJ-era Democrats do live on in GOP campaign literature as useful straw men.
Okay, if that's not what it means: How else could you, theoretically, balance the federal budget without slashing services?
In case you didn't notice, I have no love of the current GOP, anonymous. Please point me in the direction of the non-LBJ small government Democrats.
How else could you, theoretically, balance the federal budget without slashing services?
There's nothing theoretical about it; ask Bill Clinton.
I don't mean to imply that Clinton would have created eternal boom times, but I don't think we'd have these deficits now either under a Clinton-esque administration and economic team.
That's not an answer.
It's a no-brainer. Clinton put deficit reduction at the top of his agenda.
But now we have the "deficits-don't-matter" administration.
You can go on all you want about entitlement spending and tax cuts for the rich, but the empirical results are in. We know which system works and which doesn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubinomics
Balancing the budget is nice and all, but it tells me nothing about the fiscal policies of the budget in question. You can balance the budget at 1% spending (of GDP) or 100%. Just make inlays=outlays. (Yes, I know that's obviously an oversimplification). What that percentage is, and what it's spent on, is important.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home