It had nothing to do with your deficit, the deficit means @#%^ all to me really. But from an economic standpoint, presently your deficit is highly disconcerting. Not because it exists, but because you have no practical means to reduce it.
Ok. But that's backwards thinking. You brought up the debt when I asked what was wrong with our current corporate tax system. So, by implication, you're saying that our high debt is a result of the corporate tax system, and by extension, that by fixing said corporate tax system, we can fix the debt. I think it's very valid to point out both that the corporate tax system didn't cause our deficit, or the resulting debt, and thus it seems unfair to correct that problem by changing said taxes.
Also, your argument assumes that a greater total amount of taxes will be collected as a result of the corporate tax changes. Otherwise, why mention the high debt as a reason to change the taxes?
So you're not fixing it because of something broken about it (or at least your not making that point), but because there's some other problem, caused by something else, that you want to pay for by making corporations pay more taxes. Is that about it? So we can chuck the whole "fair and reasonable" parts of your posts out the window, right?
You preach cutting programs, specifically social programs. But I think you do not realize what these programs allow. In fact I would say you don't, because your party doesn't talk about it.
I think our social programs have long since gone past the "help people in dire need who would starve to death otherwise" and have moved into the "not worth spending money on" and "mostly used to buy people's votes" category. I think that increasing that spending is a horrible idea. You're not saving anyone. You're just shifting money from those who earn it to those who don't, and hurting both groups in the process.
Social programs allow for the middle to lower class the ability to provide healthcare, food and shelter to their families.
No, they don't. They provide
health care, food, and shelter to their families. They don't actually give those people the "ability" to do anything. Not taxing the money for those programs from the productive parts of the economy in the first place, would actually increase the ability
of those families to obtain those things themselves. The problem is that you can't see how many people are poor or struggling working class *because* of the cost of those programs.
Without things like medicare, welfare, food assistance many people would have to chose one or the other. The people who own the buildings they live in, the hospitals they attend, the food stores they shop at all rely on their income (assisted or not) to stay afloat, paying off mortgages (for rental properties), through medicare payments, and to sell goods.
And without the drain on the economy those programs create, many people would earn enough not to have to rely on government assistance in the first place. See how that works?
If these funds were not there these people would then struggle to pay their debts, to banks, doctors, farms. Who in turn can not pay their debts etc etc etc.
Nope. They would be more likely to be able to earn a living sufficient to buy those things themselves. Also, the absence of government "free money" spending in those industries would drive greater competition, meaning they'd be more affordable to more people even absent income increases. Why do you suppose that the costs of things in areas unsubsidized by government dollars continually goes down and the quality goes up, while those in those areas stay expensive (or become more so)?
I usually drop analogies about flat screen TVs, home computers, music players, etc when I make this point, but I recently heard someone make an even better point. Why is it that the cost to get a MRI has increased relatively speaking since the introduction of the technology, but the cost (and quality) of laser eye surgery has decreased over the same period of time (massively so in fact). One is covered by government funded health care (and all private health insurers who wish to participate), and the other is considered elective and is not.
Can you imagine how much less health care would cost if we got the government out of the business? I know it's a novel concept and a hard one for most people indoctrinated into the "we must provide these services for the poor", but try to stretch your mind a bit here. The pattern of cost is pretty clear.
Which brings us back to your corporate tax structure. Obama is proposing a reduction to corporate tax, meaning it costs companies less to operate, while at the same time wishing to target the inestors of these companies from avoiding loopholes that allow them to avoid paying realistic tax on the money they make (off the government in many cases).
That's not really true though. He's targeting a whole set of loopholes, some of which are investment related, but many of which (most of which) are corporate tax related. What he's doing is attempting to buy his discriminatory tax loophole policy, designed to benefit businesses and industries his supporters like, while penalizing those they don't like, by hiding it within a "but I'm lowering rates across the board" burrito.
Put another way. Company A is in an industry which Obama doesn't like. Company B is in one he does. Both companies take advantage of tax deductions which affect their respective industries. Obama proposes lowering the tax rate on both companies, but eliminates the loopholes which apply to company A's industry, while keeping those for company B intact. What has he just done? He's taken money from company A and given it to company B.
That's all this is about. If it were truly about tax reform, he'd propose a much lower tax (like 15%) and eliminate *all* corporate deductions and loopholes. But that's not what he's doing. He's selectively targeting just the industries he and his political supporters don't like. So let's stop pretending this is some sort of altruistic plan, much less even a valid economic plan. It's political favoritism. He knows it. And he knows the GOP knows it. So he knows that they'll oppose it. Nothing shocking here at all.
You could cut spending, which would severely hurt the economy of the USA, or you can tax the people who are earning money in large part from government cash (welfare, medicare, food assistance).
OMG that is completely backwards. Cutting spending will not hurt the economy of the US at all. What it will do is hurt the special interests who rely on that funding and who (mostly) support the Democrats. Taxing the people will hurt the US economy. So if the choice is between cutting spending and raising taxes, we need to cut spending.
And again, you miss the bigger point here. Our tax rates have no changed since before our deficit went out of control. Thus, tax rate changes didn't create the deficit. Raising the taxes in order to pay for the deficit is the wrong answer. You're hiding the real action here. What's happening is that the Dems want to increase spending and then raise taxes to pay for it. But they know people will oppose that plan, so they instead increase spending (by using a crisis as an excuse), and then when deficits skyrocket and our debt goes out of control, they use the need to eliminate that problem as an excuse to raise taxes.
It's dishonest to disconnect the cause of the increased debt from the action you propose to solve it. The debt isn't a separate problem. It's the result of too much spending. The solution then is to decrease spending to levels before we had this problem.
The very programs you oppose, are the very ones that prop up your parties corrupt ideals.
Uh... No. That's cute little projection, but completely false.
There needs to be a combination of cuts to spending (which are occurring presently with your military) and taxes increased. Targeting those whose value is primarily made from government money is a logical source.
Wait? So you want to target taxes at welfare recipients? You do get that failing to tax people as much isn't the same as giving them money, right? I know that liberals love to play this whole "Big business gets the most benefit from government spending game", but that's simply not the truth. If the government were to tomorrow eliminate every single dollar of domestic spending *and* eliminate all tax deductions, you know who would benefit the most? The rich and big businesses. They are paying massively more than what they gain from the government.
If I was a US citizen, I would want my money back too.
So you understand why the rich might be a bit peeved that they pay so much in taxes, and it's spent handing benefits out to people who didn't earn it? Nah, that's too much to expect.