deviant art

Deviant Login
Buy ArtBuy T-Shirts & Gear Buy adCast Buy Premium Membership
Shop
 Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour

Details

Closed to new replies
January 5
Link

Statistics

Replies: 401

We Hiked Taxes. Now What?

Forums > Community > Politics
:icontbschemer:
~TBSchemer Jan 5, 2013
It's no secret that the US is on an unsustainable fiscal trajectory. Our deficit continues to grow, and the interest payments on our debt will soon be a large enough portion of our GDP to make it impossible to truly repay our national debt. [link] When that eventuality occurs (about 3-5 years from now), we will officially be in a Greek-style financial crisis with no escape.

So we just enacted the Democrats' proposed solution to the problem- tax hikes on the rich. And nothing has changed about our situation. Our budget deficit is still going to be over $1 trillion (5% of the GDP) [link] and growing. We're still accumulating debt on an unsustainable trajectory.

Is there a Part 2 to the left-wing plan to save the US from fiscal catastrophe? I thought you were all saying all we needed to do was let the Bush tax cuts expire on the rich, and the country would be saved? You got your tax hikes on the rich, so why isn't the country saved yet? When the Republicans come forward and demand entitlement cuts to save the country from a debt catastrophe, what's going to be your alternative proposal to eliminate the deficit?

Step 1: Repeal the Bush Tax Cuts on the rich.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

love 0 0 joy 0 0 wow 0 0 mad 1 1 sad 0 0 fear 0 0 neutral 0 0
:iconpuddelbal:
~puddelbal Jan 16, 2013
You do realize that the DNC platform consists of more than just tax hikes, right?
Reply
:icontbschemer:
~TBSchemer Jan 16, 2013
Right, so what portion of their platform is actually going to solve the debt crisis?
Reply
:iconpuddelbal:
~puddelbal Jan 20, 2013
What's more important, the debt, or unemployment? The US isn't on the verge of defaulting on it's loans, so it'd be much better to worry about getting folks back to work and pay the debt down slowly.
Reply
:icontbschemer:
~TBSchemer Jan 20, 2013
Every year we dig ourselves deeper in debt, it becomes more difficult to avoid default in the future. In other words, yes, we're not immediately on the verge of defaulting, but we are past the point where the debt grows faster than our economy.

Every year we ignore the debt, our entire society loses more wealth. If we address the debt now, sure we might increase unemployment by 2%, but if we wait 3 more years, it might take an increase of 4% in unemployment to fix the mess. There is absolutely no advantage to waiting. The only reason the Democrats want to wait is because they don't want to admit that their ideology has doomed us, so they'll continue to deny it all well beyond the point of economic collapse.
Reply
:iconagburanar:
~Agburanar Jan 9, 2013
yawn

You're distorting the position of the left, I think. They would like to fix our current budgetary problems by a combination of taxation and spending cuts, rather than the Tea Party's bizarre solution of gutting social services and instituting a more regressive tax regime.
Reply
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
*Zucca-Xerfantes Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
He's not distorting a thing.

The Left has been harping on about how upping taxes on the amorphously defined 'rich' would make pretty much everything better.

We've had that a while now. Why do projections still look dismal and grim, set to become REALLY bad in about the same amount of time the next president will be in?

And tell me how the 'bizarre' solution of both tax and spending cuts would not work.

It's general belt-tightening, the way you would like you're on a diet, but Democrats want their bon-bons...
Reply
:iconlytrigian:
~Lytrigian Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
A while? It's been a couple of weeks. Just how fast do you think the economy moves, anyway?

As far as low taxes helping, we've had a historically low tax burden ever since the Bush years. If it was supposed to generate jobs, where are they? You people never acknowledge that you ALREADY had the lowest taxes since the end of WWII, and that they weren't helping.

But when did we last have budget surpluses? Gee, let me think...
Reply
:iconzucca-xerfantes:
*Zucca-Xerfantes Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Have you bothered to look at *why* Billy Blowjob presided over a surplus?

Unless you're willing to concede that Obama is responsible for digging us a multi-trillion dollar hole since he's presiding over it.

But I suppose in Black and White, Republicans can only ever preside over catastrophe and Democrats only ever do good things.

It's a full spectrum out there, dude...
Reply
:iconlytrigian:
~Lytrigian Jan 14, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Oh yes. And I've also looked into *why* Obama has been "digging" a multi-trillion dollar hole. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like the answer.

Republicans, Schmepublicans. Not everyone who dislikes Bush is an ultra-radical freak.
Reply
:iconmgonzales041090:
~mgonzales041090 Jan 14, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
amorphously defined 'rich'
It's not amorphously defined. It's defined as $250,000 a year and up.

And tell me how the 'bizarre' solution of both tax and spending cuts would not work.
It's not bizarre. We've advocated for a balanced solution consisting of new revenues and spending cuts. It's the Teapublicans who've advocated no tax hikes and harmful spending cuts.

Reply
Add a Comment:
 
Preview   Add Comment
©2013 deviantART. All rights reserved
About Us | Contact Us | Developers | Careers | Site Tour | Help & FAQ Advertise | Premium Membership Etiquette | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Copyright Policy