Skip to main content

View Diary: Senate Democrats to produce budget seeking new revenue without threat of filibuster (80 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We'll see how politically popular (7+ / 0-)

    cutting Social Security and Medicare are.  

    •  The problem is that the public is irrational (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nextstep, sydneyluv, johnny wurster

      They don't want more spending, but they don't want cuts to programs THEY like.

      The simple fact is that there are not enough "rich people" for us to fund programs like Medicare over the long term.  The Medicare Trustees projecting that, under the most optimistic scenario, Medicare alone will grow to 10% of GDP is proof of that.  If you want to keep spending at the same levels, EVERYBODY has to pay more in taxes (witness the People's Budget, that raises taxes for EVERYBODY) but the public will not accept that.

      The public basically wants everything they have now, as long as somebody else pays for it.  

      •  I support progressive taxation and butter not (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        brasilaaron, midwesterner, chuckvw

        guns  I don't know why we need to have ALL major parties supporting austerity.  So I'll lead the way and vote against both if that is what it takes.  

        I am not a great believer in some of these scenarios though.  You have to really dig into the assumptions to figure out if you're being told the truth.  I hear you when you say Medicare is unsustainable but so is the Imperial Empire.  How often do we get shiny bright scenarios on how we can't afford to pay for that!

        I am for forcing the choice.  But I don't have a party that allows me to vote for the choices I would make.

        •  I wonder what taxing capital gains (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          as ordinary income would raise?

          And eliminating the SSI cap on income would fix it permanently.

          It would be a shock, but how much would we have to raise Medicare to fully fund it?

          Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

          by Helpless on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 05:56:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it would raise very little, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            as people would just stop selling stocks, which is historically what has happened.

          •  Helpless - in the short term revenue would decline (0+ / 0-)

            When capital gains tax rates are high people keep their appreciated capital assets and borrow against them. When rates are low they sell their appreciated capital assets and reinvest. Historically when rates rise we see a dip in federal capital gains tax revenues.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:12:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Helpless - there is a reason for the SocSec cap (0+ / 0-)

            Social Security is wage insurance where you insure a portion of your wages through the contributions you and your employers make. Above some level there is no need for high income earners to insure their wages or salaries. SocSec is not an income redistribution program. It was designed very specifically by FDR to NOT be a program to redistribute income from high income earners to low income participants. Increasing the cap to capture 90% of all wages and salaries (about $190K) makes sense, and allowing the top benefit to rise accordingly. Eliminating the cap would fundamentally change SocSec as we know it.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:18:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site