Yeah, but isn't the whole point to deprive the government of the revenue to pay out entitlements. Looks like the graphs match up nicely. Now we don't have any choice but to boot lazy grandmothers off the dole.

Drown it in a bathtub indeed.

You know, if a Democrat wanted to shoot a hole in the GOP's tax cut argument that "it's your money", it would be worth pointing out that going into debt to Central Asian Banks means that the check you're getting isn't actually your money, but rather money borrowed on top of a deficit in time of war.

Of course, this won't happen, because...well, you know.

ROBERT Samuelson, not Paul. Paul is the genius and Nobel Memorial Prize winning economist from MIT. Robert is the "centrist" pundit. Newsweek should dump Robert and bring back Paul, who, even in his 90s, would be more interesting.

"It's your money"... ..."And your children and grandchildren's debt (to be paid the to Chinese)"

With Interest.

As Bush always says: “You know how to spend your money better than the government does.� So go ahead and use your tax cut to buy that hot tub or SUV, the government would have just wasted it on things like bridges and schools.

And thus, the Bush tax cuts work just as they were DESIGNED to work - to bankrupt the government while skimming off the wealth to his "base".

"And thus, the Bush tax cuts work just as they were DESIGNED to work - to bankrupt the government while skimming off the wealth to his "base". (marty).

Exactly. And "skimming off the wealth to his 'base'" is immensely facilitated by the Iraq conflict. War is the most efficient mechanism to conceal theft of public money. This has been my lament from the beginning. The objective of this administration has been, quite simply, to bankrupt our government and fill the pockets of those who control it.

And we keep enabling them, by barking off after Gonzalez and being endlessly diverted by the red herrings Bush keeps dragging across the trail. Meanwhile, they're looting the treasury while we argue about when and how we might do or not do something.

And whining about how unfair it all is.

They have to shovel the money fast. Only 16 months left.

For years I have been proposing, only half in jest, that we should "privatize the national debt". Let's split the check. Divvy up the "national" debt into 300 million individual debts, and let each American service or pay down his own share. The "average" American currently owes the nation's bondholders around $30K. I don't know if that's too much or not, but I do know that if each American had the _choice_ to pay down his "privatized" debt balance or let his children inherit it, his outlook on tax cuts and spending proposals would be better-informed. And as we all know, "people make better decisions when it's their own money".

-- TP

I'm going to miss Max too and I'm glad you featured his last EPI snapshot - which was excellent graphics to drive home an important point. But I do not understand the dig at Paul Samuelson. OK - Robert Samuelson may publish a lot of centrist crap (sorry for the profanity but there's no other word for it) but Robert is not related to Paul

Tony P - "privatized" debt:

Am I being way too cynical to suggest that most Americans would opt to let their children inherit the debt? Making it our "own money" would somehow cause us to behave responsibly?

Considering the national savings rate (negative number) and 1.3 ratio of debt to income, why would we change our habits if another $30K were added to our personal debt?

Let the kids deal with it. Party on!

Yeah, but isn't the whole point to deprive the government of the revenue to pay out entitlements.

posted by adventuregeek

no, the idea is not to deprive the government of revenue. the idea is to get reelected. if you're a republican, you do that by appealing to your base through tax cuts, no matter their soundness, or lack thereof, while continuing to pay entitlement and thereby not pissing anybody off. deficits don't matter if they're run up in order to keep republicans in office.

You know what pisses me off? I voted against GWB in 2000, I opposed his tax cuts in 2001, I voted for a Democratic senator in 2002 (that was the year when Paul Wellstone was killed in a plane crash right before the election) in the hope of stopping GWB (but a Republican was elected), I opposed the Iraq War in 2003, I voted against him in 2004, I have opposed his attempts to gut SS, hand over the wilderness to developers, etc, etc.

..and yet, when America finally accepts that it needs to pay for a functioning government, I am going to be taxed at the the same rate as all those stupid idiots who voted for GWB in 2000 and 2004, thought his tax policie were dandy and the Iraq War justified.

I wish there could be some kind of special tax rate for Republicans--sort of like reparations for war crimes.

I don't think re-election is on the Republican calendar right now. I believe their strategy is the same one they've used before. Dems will have to clean up the mess, raise revenue, restore the economy, balance the budget, reduce the national debt. Then the Republicans can invent another crisis that will allow them to take over and do it to us again.

We fall for it every time.

PTate's comment is interesting. But a special tax rate for Republicans would only mean they would pay less while the proletariat would bear the brunt of the cost of government.

However I do have an idea with respect to paying for the Iraq War.

Add a special additional federal income tax to persons in the congressional districts whose representatives and senators vote for continuing to fund the war. That might be just the thing we need to make congress hear the people.

I wish there could be some kind of special tax rate for Republicans--sort of like reparations for war crimes.

I'm sure the NSA has a roster of who voted the "right" way.

"... in the latter days, the citizens of the Empire squandered their wealth and their childrens' inheritance on the trappings of imperial power... great villas were constructed, lavish parties thrown that awed the entire city of Rome..."

"Meanwhile, the unravelling of the Roman infrastructure was being plastered over and covered up by the staging of great public entertainments. Political unrest was further contained by the continual creation of new enemies to Rome, both real and imaginary..."

2000 years later... and nothing has changed.

2000 years later... and nothing has changed

Except Rome didn't have nukes. But they did have better parties.

O,K., let's raise taxes. How about a 100% estate tax, no exemptions, until all medicare benefits received by the recently deceased are recovered?

UPDATE: Yes, yes, it's Robert, not Paul. Robert, not Paul. Jeez. You'd think I'd stop making this mistake eventually.

For years, I've been joking that the WaPo thought they were hiring Paul, not Robert, and only realized their mistake after it was too late.

Robert Samuelson doesn't have any econ credentials. He majored in government at Harvard.

to wileycat:
As I said, my call to "privatize the national debt" is half in jest. Your question, "why would we change our habits if another $30K were added to our personal debt?" is a serious one.

One answer is that "we" would no longer need to all have the _same_ habits . This is similar to the notion raised by PTate and optical_weenie. And all these suggestions are based on the notion that people's _voting_ habits would change, if their votes really tied back directly to their pocketbooks.

A different answer is that if "we" really don't care that we're now servicing (and without the personal option to pay down) $30K of "national" debt apiece, then "we" have the national debt "we" deserve.

-- TP

buford - exactly. Nothing new here. Empires rise; empires fall. Ours is in decline.

Meanwhile, the emporor and his minions are making off with what's left of the treasury.

They occupy our attention with circuses:

Last act, Gonzalez. Next up: PETRAEUS and Company, Gladiators. Future Attractions: What Will Cheney Do?

And we sit around twittering with impossible dreams: raise taxes in certain congressional districts? 100% Estate Tax if....? Prattle on.

Doesn't anyone notice what's happening while we watch the circuses and indulge our fantasies about what we woud do if we were emperor?

Read buford's post (4:40 pm) again, And again. And again.

Let's get real. This is serious.

wileycat:
You think I'm joking about the nukes? Scares me so damn much I have to follow it with a wisecrack just to keep functioning.

Tony P - sorry to have overlapped with your last post.

Your principle is, I believe, well-founded. But I despair that application of it would materially affect how Americans behave.

I can (again, perhaps too cynically) anticipate a reaction that says "So what are you going to do? Foreclosure? Already been there. Put me in Jail? Debtors' prisons are out of style. So I don't pay up? Arrest me."

Problem is, most of us "liberals" behave honestly and responsibly. It baffles us when others don't. We get taken as suckers over and over again, because we tend to trust others.

I'm not arguing that we should be dishonest just because they are. Not at all.

I'm only arguing that we should recognize what is happeniing, and not be in denial about it. Reality is what reality is. Like it or not.

We are not dealing with honorable people. They will destroy us if we allow them.

Democratic, constitutional, honest means are available (at least for now). We must stop being enablers and initiate the confrontation.

I would add to buford's musings the history of how Aldolph Hitler was chosen (he didn't seize power, he was given it) to lead Germany to destruction. Liberal Germans were crushed. Another parallel to think about.

Well, Tony, let me ask you this;

Do you think most Americans would have the same driving habits if they had to pay the REAL costs for gasoline for their cars? You know, the costs that aren't factored-in at the pumps?

The cost of the war-machine to keep the oil flowing.
The cost of loss of a planet on which to live when we've poisoned our atmosphere with too much carbon.
Hell - who can even calculate how much it cost us when we were putting LEAD in our gasoline, and spewing that out our tailpipes for our kids to breathe for a couple of generations?

This is the brilliance of the capitalist opportunist. Find a way to let someone make a purchase decision for your product, who is not ultimately the stakeholder or person who has to bear the cost - then sell like crazy.

thersites -

Scares the hell out of me, too. I can see it coming....another September (2008) surprise. Or earlier.

All the Current Commander-in-Chief needs to do to assure continuance of power is have Iran lob a missle at us.

At most, a few $million could arrange that.

So easy.

You don't have to be intelligent to pick fights.

osama -

interesting. In transportation policy matters I've worked with over the past 50 years, I've often posited that if a "farebox" were installed in each automobile, and the driver was required to deposit the exact cost (externalities included) of his/her trip before the car would start, then we'd be where we ought to be with financing transportation systems, and people would drive less.

Not so sure, now, in the perspective of history. The inelasticity of the demand curve vs. gasoline prices leads me to think that it wouldn't matter to most people.

Addiction ignores economics. We're addicted to our automobiles, and we'll pay whatever....

I'm sounding more and more like a grumpy cynic.

Whatever.

Dr. Samuelson would be impressed that you so quickly corrected your mistake.

BTW, Osama -- that's the main reason our national attitude toward public transportation is so flawed -- we somehow believe that transit ought to "pay for itself" (i.e. through the farebox) and ignore the enormous hidden subsidies that automobiles enjoy.

So long as we treat public transportation as an unequal partner in the people-cafrying business, we'll never be able to mount an effective alternative to the automobile.

I'm not arguing that Americans should be required to abandon their cars and take to public transit. I'm simply arguing for a "level playing field" on economic issues.

We're still a democracy and, thankfully, still have the right to make choices. But we're also entitled to have facts about the implications of our choices.

General Motors and Standard Oil, in the late 30s and early 40s made certain that we wouldn't have access to the facts. Subsequent governmental administrations have bought into that obfuscation, and here we are.

Myopic public policy is fed by ignorance of economic realities. Applies to transportation and most other major issues.

General Motors and Standard Oil, in the late 30s and early 40s made certain that we wouldn't have access to the facts.

And, if I remember correctly, they bought up numerous formerly-profitable privately-owned public trans carriers, reduced them to basket economic basket cases, and then foisted them off onto the government. How's that for free enterprise?

Why do progressives allow Social Security to be treated as just another "entitlement"? The fact is that if we didn't have a Social Security program during the last seven years, the budget deficit in each of those years would have been greater.

Real entitlement like our so called Defense budget which are bloated with gratuities to large donors and defense contractors get very little attention while a program that has provided retirement income to millions of Americans and has paid for itself is constantly subject to abuse.

theristes - essentially correct.

However, private mass transit operations were already in trouble by the end of the 30s -- competition against publicly-subsidized automobiles was already causing them to fail. National City Lines (General Motors+Standard Oil) seized the opportunity to acquire these failing companies, and convert them from streetcars (steel rails, overhead electric wire) to diesel bus. This fed both General Motors (bus-makers) and Standard Oil (fuel-suppliers) and effectively erased electric-powered mass transit in this country.

Ultimate failure of the National City Lines systems led to public takeover and the mess we see today.

GM and Standard Oil profited in every way -- acqisition, conversion, and disposition -- and the public was the loser in every phase of this game. The fallout from this conspiracy encouraged private automobile use and degraded public transit.

Had it not been for the stacked deck of public subsidy of the private automobile, the privately-owned and operated systems wouldn't have been easy targets for National City Lines takeover.

The free market wasn't allowed to operate, and we see the sad result.

When you put a criminal in charge of the country, why would you expect anything but criminal financial mismanagement? And that is exactly what we have gotten the past six and a half years. Our grandchildren will be paying for this criminal's misdeeds.

As an aside, there is no such thing as a Nobel Prize in economics. There is a Prize in memory of Alfred Nobel for economic, but it is awarded by, I believe, the National Bank of Sweden, not the Royal Academy.

Sorry but the Federal government gets enough of my money. I think the fact that 35% of my paycheck goes to people who cannot stop having kids out of wedlock is absurd. I don't mind paying for schools, bridges, roads or any other infrastructure needs but people need to learn to take care of themselves and their families. And for all you bleeding hearts out there, there are more leaches on our system than you are willing to admit. I see it everyday and it's disgusting. I don't mind helping people who need the help but I find it repulsive to help out people perfectly capable of working and making their own way.

Dee -

And how would you propose to implement your plan?

Would poor people be allowed to cross your bridges and travel on your roads? Would their out-of-wedlock kids be permitted to go to your schools?

Or are you proposing a kind of Final Solution" so that only you and other hard-working, celibate Americans would be entitled to use your infrastructure?

I assume you'll decline Social Security benefits and pay your own health care? After all, why should any part of my income go to your support? (Just following your reasoning here).

I think the fact that 35% of my paycheck goes to people who cannot stop having kids out of wedlock is absurd.

I think your claim that 35% of your paycheck goes to such people (at least, your implication that if this happens it is a result of taxation, rather than who you personally chose to or are legally obligated to support for other reasons) is absurd.

cm -

Dee's entire argument is absurd. It's what self-righteous people use to excuse themselves from any responsibilities of citizenship. They're the type who would STILL vote for Bush.