Krugman: The Tax-Cut Con

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

The pre-1913 era is arguably the best in the history of the american economy: not just because of the amount of wealth, but because of other factors as well. However, how much these other factors really count is subjective, so I'll just leave it at that.

Could you perhaps discuss these factors here, rather than merely providing a link...? I hate to be rude, but I honestly won't be arsed to click a link and read a diatribe. I think your summary would do just fine.

It should also be noted that during the 1950's, the payroll tax rate for the average american family was only around 2-3% compared to 15.3% today.

And ain't it funny how President Bush's tax cuts don't address these needs for the working middle class.....?

What dues? Membership dues? Dues that the UN would use to fight off poverty?

Dues that justify us making demands of said international institution. Pay-to-play, ya dig??

If it's anything other than aid to our country, I don't think we really owe it. I don't think we should be in the UN at all to begin with, so I don't see how this is an argument against me.

Let me remind you. You argued above that we were depleting domestic resources by handing out aid and supporting the UN. This isn't true.

If you think I make you laugh, imagine how silly you seem now. The fact is, SS hasn't done anything but grow in funding. Put simply: SS can simply know grow fast enough to compensate for our population. It would take tax increases, not just progressive tax rates.

SS is expected to run dry again by when.....? The entire government is consistently expanding, this doesn't mean ss is bank rolling. You're right about keeping up with the advancements in life expectancy, but I feel this could be handled if the tax burden returned to its 1950s level. Our birthrate is decreasing in America, so although we will be dealing with the flux of retiring baby boomers, it would be neglegent to count on that large flux every decade, IMO.

If anything, SS's failing should mean that Bush listens to the alternative, uses the alternative as an option for those already in SS, and prevents newer generations from opting in the program. That way, we can get rid of it rather than pump money into a failing system.

I'm curious, explain how it's failing. If anything, it works too well (that and other benefits that have aided Americans in living healthier, longer lives). It's failing because we are coming upon the end of a boom. This boom will not be there again next time around, despite the increase in longevity. Giving up on the system, IMO, would be comparable to Jefferson and Treasury Secretary Galadin giving up on the production of naval ships for war purposes. We won't face a war at sea, right? Oops, War of 1812....

It's true that welfare costs very little in taxes. I would argue that it goes further than that in effect, however.

Okay, then argue that.

My point is that for all we know, the economy would be a lot worse right now without those tax cuts. Thus, they may not have been enough to make the recession end, but they might have speed up the recovery without even looking like it.

And Krugman's point then about Johnson then comes to mind. Should Lyndon be rewarded for Reagan's successes in the early 80s...? I mean, who knows, right? Maybe the Great Depression would've gone on longer, and Communism might have swept the country, were it not for FDR's anti-biotic approach to the situation. Who knows? Is this however a wise way to judge history...?

[quote]

Maybe because even under our current system, roughly 50 million Americans even today go without healthcare...? Maybe because prior to the New Deal, ya know, your "golden age," the elderly did comprise a large portion of our nation's impoverished....?[/url]

I would ask you to support your statement - and even if you do, ask yourself this: is it really government's job to support the elderly because they didn't save any money for the future?

The healthcare data is "common knowledge" enough that I decline your request. I'm too lazy, so you do it, or simply don't believe me.

And as for saving: When middle Americans are carrying the tax burden, when they are working more for less more so than ever, with college expenses rising, etc., to expect people to save enough to live out the rest of their lives is a bit much. The Preamble of the Constitution states that it is our duty, the people's, to "promote the general welfare" of each other. I'd say a national healthcare system, something every other industrialized nation has taken the lead on, falls under that welfare.

Yes, but then how would we know how the free market would have handled the Great Depression? Based on previous information - and how long it takes us to get out of modern recessions - it seems as though it would have taken less time.

Based on prevuious information, the political climates were different, too. The G.D. was, uh....GREAT. Big. Also, International Socialism was all the rage then. IMO, FDR used it against it, and probably saved this union along the same lines as Abraham Lincoln. But that's just me....well, and maybe another several thousand Americans who are still grateful to the man to this day.