You catch me out of my expertise because I am not an economist. However I think you are deluding yourself if you think any new tax money would go towards eliminating the deficit. More than likely that money will go the same route as the money in the social security fund. Pork barrel spending for special interest groups.
If along with raising these taxes, you could make a law that every penny of these new found funds would go towards paying the deficit down, you just might be able to justify new taxes. But you know that is never going to happen, so you can figure that the money is going elsewhere. Not really rocket science is it?
Also, for me I am pretty comfortable in addressing the deficit the same way we would like to address the health care. ie: by getting to the bottom of the problem rather than using bandaids.
As for the money problem, I think Ron Paul has the answers.
Put the money back on the gold standard so that the federal reserve stops printing money. They are to happy to print money, and put us deeper in debt, to continue paying interest. These lackies in Washington will (read Obama) will be only to happy to raise taxes to pay this interest forever. ( That's yours and my money)
If you have to ask me, you need to get out more. You might start here.
"Friday, July 25, 2008
It's time to buy your tickets! Today at 10:00AM CST tickets go on sale at www.ticketmaster.com for the Rally for the Republic in Minneapolis on September 2.
All Tickets sell for $17.76. The best seats will go fast so be the first in line at 10:00AM CST. You can buy up to 8 tickets for you, your family, friends, and co-workers.
Are you going to participate in the Ticket Bomb? Can we sell out the Target Center?
All eyes will be on us in Minneapolis as Republican National Committee delegates ascend on the Twin Cities. All RNC delegates and alternates who want to attend our event will have a reserved seat. This is our greatest opportunity to make a statement and take our Party back. Join us in Minneapolis on September 2 as we witness history.
A true revolution is occurring. It's time to stand up for our Constitution and restore the republic!
Every major broadcasting network is lining up to cover our event and the kickoff of the Campaign for Liberty. Stories have already been written by the Associated Press, ABC, CBS, CNN, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Minneapolis Star Tribune, just to name a few.
We will be treated all day by musicians, special guests, and performers. And the evening will afford a legendary speech by Dr. Ron Paul. This will be the most courageous moment of Dr. Paul's career. You won't want to miss it.
See you in Minneapolis,
The Campaign for Liberty Team
P.S - It is important to start planning your transportation and lodging accommodations right now. Visit our lodging page for available hotels, camp sites, and RV Parks. Make arrangements with your Meetup group or State Coordinator to be in Minneapolis September 2. Buy your tickets now before it is too late!"
If you think raising taxes is going to help the deficit, then vote for Obama. Bend over, and grab your ankles, and hope that there are more people out there that understand the situation better than you that will vote for McCain.
"by Richard W. Rahn
Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.
Added to cato.org on July 16, 2008
This article appeared in the Washington Times on July 16, 2008.
Do you think the economic, energy and environmental policies of the presidential candidates are clear, understandable and plausible? If you answered "no" for at least one of the candidates, it is, in part, because the advisers have not done an adequate job. A policy adviser to a presidential campaign has two very important roles. One is to develop coherent policies with intellectual substance and political appeal, and the other role is to brief (in reality, educate) the candidate on the issues.
This year the voters will choose between two major candidates who lack substantial private sector business experience and, particularly, entrepreneurial experience. Neither has formal schooling in economics, and both have shown deficiencies in domestic and global economic issues. Thus, the burden on their economic advisers is much greater than it was with a candidate like President Reagan, who had a degree in economics and a great interest in the subject. (Note: I am not unsympathetic to their plight, having been an economic policy adviser to congressional candidates and a presidential candidate.)
Neither candidate (especially Barack Obama) has yet been seriously challenged by the media or the other candidate on his economic policies. The advisers would be foolish to think their candidate could skate to election without exhibiting a greater understanding of the issues.
When candidates promise to do something about the deficit, they need to present a plausible plan. In the 1988 campaign, the first President Bush had a highly credible plan to balance the budget — not allow aggregate government spending to grow faster than inflation, and allow real economic growth to bring down the deficit — all without increasing taxes. It was known as the "flexible freeze," and it gave him the necessary debating points to come from behind and win the election. (The plan would have worked if Mr. Bush had not abandoned it early in his term. Ironically, the essence of the proposal was implemented by a compromise between the Republican Congress and President Clinton in the late 1990s, which resulted in the budget surplus.)
Mr. Obama's fiscal plan is totally implausible. He has, according to the National Taxpayer Union (NTU), already promised to increase spending on a variety of government programs by more than $344 billion per year. He intends to pay for it by increasing taxes on the "wealthy" (the top 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 39percent of the income tax). But the revenue he seeks will not be there, because the rich are able to find many legal (and illegal) ways to avoid paying much higher tax rates. Former Federal Reserve Board member and head of the National Economic Council Lawrence Lindsey has shown how the Obama proposal "would make the private sector $5 poorer in order to make the government $1 richer."
Nobel Laureate and "father of the euro" Robert Mundell said if Mr. Obama does not renew the 2003 tax rate reductions, "the U.S. will go into a big recession, a nosedive."
John McCain and his advisers have developed a more responsible fiscal plan, but need to explain more clearly how and where Mr. McCain will reduce spending (in light of his proposed $69 billion spending increases — again using NTU estimates) to attain his projected balanced budget and economic growth targets. If Mr. McCain can clearly articulate and defend his plan, he will have a big advantage against Mr. Obama, whose economic agenda is grossly irresponsible and destructive.
Mr. Obama's trade position is ripe for attack. It is clear from his remarks that he doesn't understand free trade, though he says he believes in it. (Hint: Free trade means trade without destructive regulations, conditions and tariffs.) Every good economist from Adam Smith (circa 1776) on has favored free trade because it results in far more winners than losers among both buyers and sellers. Mr. McCain has a strong free trade record but he needs help articulating the case.
Mr. Obama has been particularly incoherent when he advocates "energy independence" and then, in the same sentence, supports increased taxes on oil companies, which will only reduce their desire and ability to produce more. Most of the rest of his proposals would also further reduce energy supply, and he has no plausible plan to increase domestic energy supplies enough to reduce dependency.
Mr. McCain has received a gift from Mr. Obama, but he is timid about going where he should — i.e., the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. His advisers should craft language explaining that drilling in ANWR provides more benefits than costs given our current national security and economic situation and advances in technology that now enable us to do it with little environmental impact.
Neither Mr. Obama's nor Mr. McCain's advisers have adequately explained economic policy tradeoffs to their candidates, nor given them the necessary facts and arguments, because they continue to make politically and economically dumb statements.
Mr. McCain has a far stronger economic team than Mr. Obama has, but Mr. McCain's advisers must wean him from some of his misconceptions. Mr. Obama is supposed to want "change," but his economic platform is nothing more than the old, tax-spend-and-regulate-more, Democrat-labor union agenda, which, as history has shown, will only lead to lower growth and more unemployment. Thus Mr. Obama is left exposed to the Republicans (if they ever get their act together) and responsible members of the media, who might start doing a real analysis of the consequences of his proposals.
"if YOU have a strategy for reducing the deficit i would love to hear it. if you dont, then why are you complaining about someone else's?"
If he had one it might be better than the one he states. From the horses mouth. Pay attention.
"WASHINGTON -says John McCain's plan to balance the budget doesn't add up. Easy for him to say: It's not a goal he's even trying to reach.
"I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America's families," Obama told reporters this week when asked if he'd match McCain's pledge."
I started this thread about Obama raising taxes. You brought up the deficit.
Now that you know the raising of taxes aren't going to lower the deficit according to Obama, tell us now why you want to have the taxes raised.
...how much money should be in the American economy must be made based on statistics based on population growth and the price level index."
I would think that the price level index would be indicative of "the amount of goods and services available"... seems that disagreeing is just a habit for you.