Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   "Now we can cut the pie. Obama wants government to keep it all. The GOP wants to give it all back to reduce tax rates. Let's be Solomonic. Divide the revenue in half, 50% to the Treasury for reducing debt, 50% to the citizenry for reducing rates"   ( divider line
    More: Interesting, Obama wants, obama, treasuries, tax rates, GOP, Martin Feldstein, Tom Coburn, Louisiana Purchase  
•       •       •

2146 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Mar 2013 at 12:45 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-03-22 12:02:45 PM  
4 votes:
By Charles Krauthammer

2013-03-22 01:12:49 PM  
3 votes:
Spoiler alert: Solomon was bluffing.
2013-03-22 12:55:40 PM  
2 votes:
By Charles Krauthammer

2013-03-22 12:51:06 PM  
2 votes:
Ooh analogies! Can I play Charles?
Democrats see the pool as half empty, Republicans see the pool as half full.
2013-03-22 12:10:05 PM  
2 votes:
The only thing truly bankrupt is the intellect of Charles Krauthammer.
2013-03-22 05:19:55 PM  
1 vote:

Gecko Gingrich: If I recall my Solomonic fables, the GOP would be the one's who rolled over on their baby and killed it. "Obama" would be the one who will say, "Don't cut it in half!" right at the last second.

It's like you have to not have a basic understanding of anything (or everything must be a complete misunderstanding) to be part of the GOP. Thanks for pointing out they couldn't even get the lesson learned from this fable correct.
2013-03-22 04:16:38 PM  
1 vote:
And if incomes weren't stagnant for 30 years this wouldn't be a problem, and until they start growing again, you can't do much more than put band aids on various issues.
2013-03-22 03:51:52 PM  
1 vote:

HeadLever: It sure is.  It may not be our most pressing problem, but I'll argue that it is one of our biggest...

Sure it is, nobody sane or credible says that in the long term, it isn't. However, there are problems with a flat "national debt is the problem" assertion:

First,  austerity does not work in economic downturns. Never has, still hasn't, never will. This is not debatable; it is demonstrable fact.

Second, and following from the first point,  now is not the proper time to address the debt. We're still in recovery from the 2008 economic collapse. Once we've recovered and unemployment is down,  then is the proper time to address debt and deficit problems.

Third,  we in the US have decided to not practice austerity during economic upswings. This is Keynesian economics' "dirty little secret" and elephant in the room. If you're to deficit spend to prevent deflationary spirals, regulate busts, and speed recovery,  you must recoup those losses and pay down debt incurred, during the boom cycle. This is easily demonstrated in the late 1990s, when Clinton and Congress worked together to cut taxes, give rebates, and ease financial and monetary regulatory schema because we were in a boom, opposed to use budget surpluses to pay down the debt, and again between 2003-7 when the Bush administration and Congress did the same during the housing bubble.

Fourth,  our boom/bust cycle is highly unstable. Because in the last thirty years our government has deemed it unnecessary to practice austerity at any time, using downturns as an excuse to cut taxes, increase spending, and ease regulatory schema, and upswings as an excuse to do the same, let alone practice austerity at the  right time, we've experienced a boom/bust cycle that is not only unstable but also increasing in severity with each cycle, coming ever closer to an inflationary or deflationary spiral each time. This problem with our boom/bust cycle is exacerbated by regulatory schema that are, to be charitable, exceedingly inadequate. Case in point, the precipitating market activity to the 2008 economic collapse, despite much of which being of prosecutorial merit even now went unpunished and in fact rewarded, would have been unequivocally illegal as late as 1998 under the Glass-Steagall Act.

Fifth,  we lack the political will or competency to rectify either problem. Legislators are more interested in being elected than doing what is best for our economy, and "well, we're doing all right now so it's time to tighten our belts and pay down on what we had to spend to get ourselves back to good times"  never sits well with voters. Tax cuts and rebates do.

Sixth, and now we enter into the realm of international political economy,  the USD is still the global reserve currency. There are, and have been for decades, more dollars circulating overseas than domestically. The US actually lacks direct control over the value of the USD for that, but on the other hand retaining global reserve currency status gives the US unprecedented global influence. Without dollars flowing overseas (enabled by interest payments on foreign debt) to match global economic growth, we risk losing that status to countries or multi-national organizations with regional hegemonic influence. In short, we must run  some level of foreign debt to keep dollars flowing overseas for international trade.
2013-03-22 03:47:09 PM  
1 vote:

HeadLever: MFK: The current system is rigged in favor of the top 10% earners.

Well, then, let's reduce teh amount of tax loopholes they have avalible to them as Feldstein proposes.  If you were going to only tax the rich, you would not get very far in the way of deficit reduction.  For any significant deficit reduction to take place,  the middle class is going to have to participate.

Oh, and here is a little blub calling our your retared assertion that tax loopholes are only for the middle class:

nice strawman that you've built and subsequently knocked down. I didn't say that the tax loopholes were only for the middle class. But thanks for playing.

And what's this nonsense about how "because taxing the rich won't solve ALL our problems we shouldn't do it at all?" That position comes from such a state of utter ignorance that I'm surprised you people still pull it out... every farking time.
2013-03-22 03:43:50 PM  
1 vote:

HeadLever: MFK: Reducing loopholes" is doublespeak for "let's take away the few benefits the middle class gets from the tax code so the ultra wealthy don't have to see their nearly non-existant tax rates increase".

Hmm, I wasn't aware the the wealthy did not use tax loop holes.  My mistake then.


I find it interesting that not a one of you republicans is willing to point to which loopholes are going to magically reduce the deficit.  I think that's because the ones you want to cut would be political suicide and you know it.

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Which loopholes can be cut that will achieve the goals you're trying to achieve?

Name them.

Please proceed.
2013-03-22 03:31:58 PM  
1 vote:

HeadLever: Teufelaffe:
[ image 461x295]

Strike out 'MY" in your pic and replace with "CBO".  That is what they get paid to do.

OK, now find us that pretty graph sourced directly from the CBO instead of pulled from some economic doom and gloom blog.
2013-03-22 03:25:15 PM  
1 vote:
Ah, the mind of a modern conservative. Somehow thinking that the moral of the Solomon story is that splitting the baby is a great idea.
2013-03-22 02:52:52 PM  
1 vote:

HeadLever: un4gvn666: All these hoops to jump through and logical pretzel-twists, just to avoid the reality that taxes have to go up.

Many republicans do not have an issue with increasing revenues, as many have supported the notion that we can reduce loopholes to get this done.  Krauthammer is apparently on board.  If some Democrats would maybe start supporting this notion as well and stop carpet-bombing those that are willing to work toward this path, we may start to see some movement in this regard, while at the same time marginalizing those repbulicans that are truley a roadblock toward this goal.

Give me a farking break.

"Reducing loopholes" is doublespeak for "let's take away the few benefits the middle class gets from the tax code so the ultra wealthy don't have to see their nearly non-existant tax rates increase".

The current system is rigged in favor of the top 10% earners. The top 10% are the ONLY ones who have benefited from the current system to the detriment of the rest of us. So why should we "be willing to work with" these guys who are only out to stab us in the back? They're not negotiating in good faith, but they are trying to spread the propaganda that they are. But you know this already which is why you're astroturfing in this thread to try and make Charles farking Krauthammer seem like someone with "reasonable" ideas.

Go pound sand, HeadLever. We're not falling for it.
2013-03-22 01:09:21 PM  
1 vote:
Ugh. Fark needs a Krauthammer tag, I need to know what kind of derp I'm getting into beforehand.
2013-03-22 12:54:31 PM  
1 vote:

rtaylor92: Ooh analogies! Can I play Charles?
Democrats see the pool as half empty, Republicans see the pool as half full.

Libs eat cheeseburgers like this:
3.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size

Real Americans eat cheeseburgers like this!
img686.imageshack.usView Full Size
2013-03-22 12:04:57 PM  
1 vote:
Because we're totes not suffering due to insanely low tax rates already.
2013-03-22 12:04:40 PM  
1 vote:
Double fail:  Solomon never actually cut the infant in half.  And I don't trust this government "to make the best deal since the Louisiana Purchase."

I'm as good a liberal as any other Cantabrigian, but at least get the mythology right.
2013-03-22 11:39:35 AM  
1 vote:
I don't understand why such stupidity gets national press. I really don't.
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.