Why can't more politicians show courage like Sen. Tom Coburn?

Because, as he usually does, he tries to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and elderly, but not on his friends in the oil and gas industry, nor will he raise revenues. He wants to cut medical benefits for veterans.

And I am sick of Republicans that talk out of the side of heir mouth about support of soldiers and veterans and then deny them benefits.

He isn’t being brave, he is being a coward.

This is my favorite quote from the article

__“I have no doubt that both parties will criticize portions of this plan, and I welcome that debate,” Coburn told reporters. “But it’s not a legitimate criticism until you have a plan of your own.“__

It’s too easy to complain, you don’t need any understanding of the scope or complications of the problem. It’s much harder to come up with a viable solution and that’s what should be focused on.

any ideas why the emphasis markup works in preview but not once posted?

@funkdaddy It looks like you may have typed the underscore twice each time, rather that once.

Coburn courageous? He was courageous enough to give himself a pay raise while complaining about the salaries of lower federal employees. That’s pretty freaking courageous.

He’s courageous enough to miss 82 Congressional role call votes since 2005 too. Brave man.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – the pay raise was actually voted down… source

They actually vote to not get the raise, which is automatic, instead of voting themselves a raise.

Anytime you start cutting government programs the shit hits the fan. It’s so much easier to criticize than to propose a plan. The whole environment today is toxic. Wait for someone to try and fix the problem then tear them to shreds. There are things I definitely don’t like in this proposal, much like the Ryan plan. Offering alternatives may be a difficult simply because you open yourself to be torn to shreds. Ain’t politics wonderful.

I’ve met Coburn and he is an interesting guy.
But people who thrive on government enforced charity clearly can’t stand him, and there are more of them than there are the likes of him. Give him credit for trying.

At least Coburn puts everything on the table. His proposal has some good ideas, such as no mortgage interest deduction on second homes, or on homes over $500,000/ But the bottom line is we increased defense spending 300% over the last 10 years while slashing taxes for the rich and adding a ton of additional loopholes. The wealthiest 1% now onn over 40% of all the financial wealth of the USA. They need to take a bigger share of the burden of balancing this budget. We shouldn’t do it mostly on the backs of the poor, the elderly, and young people needing an education.

@ETpro

I know the talking point is this “fixing the problem on the backs of the poor’ argument but it seems we could do some things that wouldn’t put the burden on anyone. Raising taxes is simply bad for a recession. Let me try this on for size.

Normally when interest rates decline, there is a flood of refinancing. The current lender gets back their money on the loan, the new lendor gets closing costs, everybody gets something and the system works well. Unfortunately that hasn’t happened this time because too many house either don’t have equity or are under water. Hell even many of the subprime loans were expected to be refinanced. The housing bust has thrown a monkey wrench in this process. Nonethe less many homeowners are making thier payments even though thier house is underwater.

We tried the debt reduction or adjustment but that costs everyone money. The banks aren’t receptive since they actually lose value and gain nothing by doing it. The other thing we need to kepp in mind is that the government efforts in a reccession is to get more money into the hands of the public to increase spending. Whether that is through tax cuts or government spending the goal is the same.

So with that in mind what if we pressued the banks or Feddie and Fannie to allow refinancing for homes with little or no equity, that were in good standing on the loan (they had been making their payments on time). There seems to be little risk in those loans and a lower ineterest rate would only make them more affordable and less risky. The lower payments would put more money in the hands of the homeowners (injecting billions into the economy), increasing national spemnding levels, The lower interest rates would make the interest deduction on homes smaller increasing tax revenue, and the lower payment would stem some of the foreclosures. Banks get their money back on the current loan, new loans have origination fees for the banks, I just don’t see any losers here.

My point here is that we don’t have to penalize anyone to start solving our problem. And getting the economy moving is the real solution to our problem.

@Jaxk You sure are in a bad position to denigrate others for pushing talking points. Actually, the label is a logical fallacy. Whether or not a statement is a talking point of a political party has nothing to do with whether it is true of false. I am interested in truth,m not labels and deliberate use of fallacious arguments to sell something that is unsalable on its merits.

The fact is we raised taxes on the top brackets 7 ties during the Great Depression, and in no instance did that prove damaging to recovery. We cut sopending one time during the Great Depression, and got the recession within the depression where GDP plumeted and unemployment shot up by 5 points. But Con men chant “You can’t raise taxes in a recession.” and instead insist we slash spending by $1 trillion or more. Doing that will devastate the already fragile economy and turn slow recovery into a rapid decent into depression.

So you have two competing talking points. They contradict one another. Both can’t be true, and since they are opposites, both can’t be false. It is up to each person who cares about truth to check the facts, learn the truth of history, and decide which talking point makes sense.

I agree that tax cuts directed to middle alnd lower class people can be stimulative. Those people will spend extra money if they get it. Tax cuts for corporate jet setters and the wealthiest 1%, what the GOP is focusing on, is useless in a demand-side crisis. They will not spend the money. They won’t even invest it here where returns are low. And tax cuts, whichever class they are given too, are tough to take back away when times are better. Direct stimulus through infrastructure, research spending, healthcare spening and such things put money into the economy fast and build for a better tomorrow as well. Ultimately it doesn’t matter whether you cut taxes or spend, it goes to the deficit.

@ETpro

First, talking points are designed to inflame rather than inform. That’s why they are created and why they are used. If you can get a good talking point it raises the emotional level of the discussion without adding any information to it. I have no idea what you think is unsaleable on it’s merits, apparently you didn’t have a talking point on this one so skipped it.

Hoover raised taxes at the very beginning of the recession and again in the revenue act of 1932. We didn’t fare well from either of those. Again in 1937 taxes were raised massively (tax rates, SS was a new tax and exemptions were reduced/eliminated). again we didn’t fare well. On the other hand we spent like crazy for 8 years and that didn’t solve the problem. Yet you want to experience the great depression again with the same policies that held us captive for a decade. You seem more than willing to let our credit rating deteriorate just to keep the spending going. S&P has threaten to downgrade our rating even if we raise the debt ceiling but don’t cut $4 trillion in deficit spending over the next 10 years. We are in a pinch and ignoring the oncoming train won’t solve our problem. Nor will blaming all your woes on the rich. We need solutions and there hasn’t been a single proposal from anyone on your side to even address the problem, let alone fix it. If your so hell bent on what won’t work maybe you could find something that will. Short of more spending and more taxes. Sorry I didn’t mean to side step your only talking point.

@Jaxk Here’s the definition of Talking Point “A talking point in debate or discourse is a succinct statement designed to persuasively support one side taken on an issue. Wikipedia gives. “A talking point in debate or discourse is a succinct statement designed to persuasively support one side taken on an issue.” That’s what I mean when I sy “Talking Point.” Such a statement can be either entirely true, entirely false, or somewhere in between. Merely labeling something a talking point is no more valid in proving it false than labeling it, “frem a newspaper: or “frem a scientific report.”

Let’s be clear on this Talking Points topic. I do not visit political party websites often at all. I get my news online from articles that interest me in Google News, Yahoo News and my local ABC Affiliate’s local news website. I also subscribe to Slate, the Washington Post, and Daily_Events newsletters and read articles I find interesting in those. I very rarely end up on wither the Daily Kos of Mat Drudge’s websites. I express what I believe in my own words. If they happen to match someone’s talking points, it is almost certainly merely coincidence. If I am outraged at political policies I feel are morally depraved and seriously harmful to the United States of the world, you bet my words may be meant to incite, not just inform. I do believe there are things worth fighting for.

As to the truth of the Great Depression, the top marginal tax rate was at when the depression began in 1929. The GDP and employment rate dropped superstitiously till 1932, began to level off, and began to recover in the second quarter of 1933.

Here are the facts on top margianl rates from 1920 to present. You left out a very large bundle of singnifacnt facts in masaging the numbers to make your desired conclusion flow from them. I don’t know whether you arrived at that error independently, or were guided by right-wing talking points, but I am familiar enough with the work of the Cato Institute, The Heritage Foundation and many other think tanks to know that’s what you are delivering.

You left out that Hoover’s massive tax increase of 1932 brought taxes back to 10% less than they had been in 1920, a year when the economy was booming. One might logically conclude that it was tax slashing for the rich, not higher rates, that caused the Depression. I happen to think this is only a minor factor, but it was a factor that made dealing with the mess more difficult.

You failed to mention that the 25% rate in place when the 1929 crash occurred had been in place for only 4 years, and that Hoover’s first move in 1928 was to drop the rate to 24%. You failed to mention that his first “huge” increase in 1929 was to go back from 24 to 25%. You failed to note that 2 quarters after the increase to 63% in 1932 took effect, the GDP began to recover. You failed to mention that the rate in place in 1937 when the recession in the depression occurred had been enacted in 1935, and that it was the spending cuts that caused the collapse. You ignored that after spending was restored, the economy again recovered even though there were 3 additional tax rate increases as it did so.

So once again, you are finding a few grains of sand and claiming that since they were ignored in calculating the height of an ant hill, it actually towers over Mount Everest. Sorry, but the facts are almost entirely against you in this conclusion.

@ETpro

I’m not sure which post your commenting on since I mentioned all the points. When I said Hover raised taxes at the beginning of the depression I assumed everyone knew that was 1929. When I said he raised them again with the Revenue Act of 1932, I assumed everyone knew that happened in 1932.

The truth is the great depression hit the US harder than almost any other country and lasted longer here than anywhere else. Even Germany that was laboring under enormous debt made worse by US policy recovered faster than we did. Hoover made a number of tactical mistakes which accelerated and deepened the depression. Raising tariffs created a chain reaction with the rest of the world which caused them to raise tariffs as well. By 1933 international trade had declined by half. The policies of FDR slowed our recovery. The tax rates remained high and the pro union policies of FDR raised the cost of labor with no increase in production. That eliminated any chance of hiring as companies scrambled to stay afloat with increasing labor costs. Business became convinced that FDR was distinctly anti-business and and avoided any long term investment (sound familiar). By 1937 it looked like the recovery was materializing but the massive tax hikes of 1937 threw us back into depression. There is an excellent article on how this worked here

The bottom line is, every recession/depression will find it’s bottom. Once industry sheds enough costs and production to equalize to demand the drop will stop. Hoover made the drop worse with his policies but the bottom had been reached by the time FDR took office. Credit where credit is due, FDR stabilized the financial industry with his bank holiday, but the recovery was elongated by his policies. Ten years of depression is hardly an ant hill and trying to pretend that is a success story just doesn’t pass the laugh test.

I suspect that a good deal of the reaon the depression hit the US so hard was we caused it, and the structural problems it left in collapse of the wealth of Wall Street and banking failures tied to that loss were concentrated here. This current economic downturn is similar in that it involved a large loss of apparent wealth in real estate.

Why did Germany recover? What did they do differently from the US?

Which one of these guys seems to make sense and which is speaking jibba-jabba?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43861330#43861330

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43861906#43861906

@funkdaddy The President’s presenting a better alternative than Speaker Boehner. We actually need to raise revenue even more than the President asked for. I will explain why. We are currently collecting the lowest percentage of our GDP in tax revenues that we have taken in since the Truman Administration 60 years ago. That is also the lowest percentage of GDP of any industrialized nation in the world. And yet we are spending vast sums on defense. The United States spends more on defense than the rest of the nations of the world put together. If we keep oiur revenues in at historically low rates, far lower than other nations, and spend so heavily on defense; then all cuts to balance the budget will devastate the working people of America, starve education, starve investment in infrastructure and the future. We will head straight into third-world status.

Boehner talks about the job creators. He’s mouthing lies and he knows it. US Corporations are sitting on $2 trillion in cash right now. Shoveling boatloads more money to them will NOT create jobs. Consumer demand will create jobs. And Boehner’s plan is to flatten and broaden the base of the tax code to raise revenue. In real English, that means he wants to extract the revenue from those below the top 1%. He wants to balance the budget on the backs of the working class, the poor and the elderly.

He is looking out for the corporate jet setters and screw everyone else. He was trained to do that at ALEC.

@funkdaddy

I find it quite interesting that Obama would call the press conference and blast the Republicans within minutes of the market close. He actually used the word default to scare the markets. It was an obvious political ploy. I’m not sure why Boehner did just go back and pass the original deal through the house ($1 trillion in expense cuts, $600 billion in SS and $800 billion in revenue). I suspect he’s not quite as politically savvy as Obama. It’s always a handicap when you’re negotiating in good faith and the other guy isn’t. Even that deal is much less than I would have wanted.

Obama has raised spending by 30% and his cuts represent less than 5%. that means even after the cuts he’s raised spending by 25%.

I should mention that @ETpro ‘s argument is fallacious at best. Revenue as a percentage of GDP always falls during a recession. It’s not tough to understand. Unemployment goes up and the tax base shrinks. The rich see a larger drop in their incomes and since they pay the lion’s share of taxes, revenue shrinks. When the recession ends and economic activity returns, so do the revenues. Regardless of the tax rate. If you look at his chart, you’ll see the revenue dips during recessions and the revenue return at the end. Regardless of whether rates went up or down. He’s trying to use the recession dip to make cheap political points. Just like Obama.

Bottom line is they were working on a deal. One that I am not really impressed with but a deal nonetheless. Obama saw an opportunity to pressure Boehner for more concessions and he took it even though it puts the entire economy at risk. In fact he increased the risk with his language in order to apply more pressure. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see what Obama is really willing to cut in all this. If he’s actually willing to cut anything at all. We don’t know because he won’t tell us.

@Jaxk Your spin of the tax revenue chart isn’t even a credible try. Anybody that bothers to look at the chart will realize that either you didn’t look at it, or you have amazingly selective vision. Tax revenue peaked in 2000 at the end of Clinton’s Administration. The Recession began in late 2007. But tax revenues dropped rapidly from 2000 to 2003 with the mini recession of the dot-com bubble’s bursting, climbed up just to about 18% in the height of the real-estate bubble in 2006, then crashed like an anchor when that bubble burst. Ignore the tick up at the end of the chart. That’s the Heritage Foundation’s guesstimate of what will happen by 2015.

Compare the 8 years of the Clinton Administration to the 8 years of Bush Administration. To claim revenues were the same, on average, is to maintain the absurd.

There is obviously such a thing as a sweet spot in tax rates. Push the rate too high, and you hurt economic activity and revenues flatten or drop. But to argue it is impossible to set it to low flies in the face of all math. Take any real number and multiply it by zero and the result is still zero. Clearly, elimination of all taxes would not produce the same revenues as the current rate, or the rate under Clinton. It would produce revenues of $0.00 or Zero percent of the GDP.

@ETpro

I assumed since you posted the chart you could read it, my mistake. The average since 1945 has been about 18%. That includes periods where the tax rate was as high as 94% and as low as 28%. I have no idea what strawman your arguing against with you Clinton point. Nor do I know what clever point you’re trying to make with your zero taxes argument. I said the sweet spot was hard to find, if you’re looking for it with zero taxes, it’s little wonder you can’t find it.

@Jaxk I can read the graph just fine. I know that there is a limit to how much revenue you will collect by raising the rate. But I also know that taxing at 14% of GDP isn’t going to raise revenues equivalent to 18% of GDP. Taxing at zero would raise no revenues. Hauser’s Law has it’s limits. And a reasonably progressive tax rate along with an estate tax on very large estates prevents generational wealth from rushing to a tiny handful of elites, who end up with enough money to use it to buy control of the government and bend it to keeping them just where they are, and all others from prospering. We are on a track toward becoming a banana republic today. Income and wealth disparity has been increasing for 30 years, and the GOP seems determined to just seep cutting taxes forever for major corporations and the very wealthy. This isn’t healthy for America, and it is most certainly not the way out of a demand side crisis where consumers can no longer afford to spend.

@ETpro

Just a point of order, we don’t tax GDP. I’m not sure what that statement means.

@Jaxk Tax revenue as a percent of GDP is the metric I’m referring to.

So. that understood, let me return to the point I was trying to make. Do you truly believe that you would raise roughly the same revenue whether top marginal tax rates were 100%, 50% or 0% of income; because for Hausers Law to be a law, that’s what you must believe.

@ETpro

If you’re trying to say that either 0% or 100% will kill virtually all economic activity, I would agree. Hell how could you not. If you want to argue that means it’s not a law then fine. That’s seems to be nitpicking but if you want to call it something else, fine, I don’t see that as either the the point or even pertinent.

I had never heard of Hauser’s Law before it was brought up here and in another thread. Nonetheless, it does tend to bring a point I find striking. If you vary the top rate between 90% and 30% the revenue (as a percent of GDP) stays amazingly stable. It seems to seek it normal level of about 18–19%. Can other events affect this trend? Of course. We can see things like the Dotcom boom drive it up and the Housing bust drive it down. Nonetheless once those are past, the revenue seems to want to return to the 18–19% level.

It would seem that rather than arguing whether it is a law or a trend or a principle or a theory, it would serve us better to figure why it is happens. Because we have 50 years of history to show that it does happen.

It’s not a law, @Jaxk because if you tweak tax rates, and let economic activity and market panics operate over 100 years one time, you will get one particular graph of revenue as a percent of GDP. Taking that craggy line, you can draw a parallel through it such that the same area is enclosed in its peaks as in its valleys. That would be your Hauser’s law for that trial. Now if you ran the same experiment again, you’d get a second very different graph and it too would have some average line but there is no proof the two would correlate. In fact, we can look at experiments run in different nation states under different sets of conditions, and we find that the number Hauser established just approximates the mid line of the graph of peaks and valleys in revenue in the time period he tracked and in this country. ANY graph of the same sort will have a midpoint. But they won’t all be at 18%. There is nothing magical about 18%. If there were, we would still get 18% of the GDP as revenue even if taxes were a ridiculous 0% or 100%. Too bad Hauser’s law is BS, because frankly, I would love to have a tax rate of zero and know that everything the government needs to do was still paid for by magic.