Talking Point that Irks Me: Not a Revenue Problem

[mattblancarte]

If you don't have enough money for all the groceries on your list, what do you do? Well, you could not buy them, sure. Or you could go out, work harder, and make more money, so that you can have whatever your heart desires. Or you could compromise: work a little harder, and buy a little less than what you'd really like.

While I agree that the budget imbalance is obviously part-revenue/part-spending, I'm going to reject this analogy.

The government doesn't just go out and "work a little harder" to buy its "groceries." I won't waste my time explaining to you the difference between an individual working extra hours or getting a raise vs. the government increasing/introducing taxes.

I've said more than once that one of the possible solutions is to just cut spending to be in line with our revenues. I don't think that'll work, but it's a defensible position. What the talking point does is attempt to take two of three possible solutions to the problem off the table, by mischaracterizing the nature of the problem.

I'm not sure what "off the table" means in this context, but I'm looking at it more like they are strongly in support of spending cuts and less in favor of tax increase. If they were simply supporting all three (supposed) options, it would make them appear as indecisive and wishy-washy. They have an agenda, and they're pushing for it. Big surprise?

Maybe I've missed something (been very busy over the past few months), but I can't recall many Democrats in congress that are entertaining large spending cuts.

im literally shaking with rage.

Why? Relax, it's the internet.

i consider myself a reasonable guy.

See above quote.

jackass

Oy...

Guys, seriously. This type of nonsense does absolutely nothing to help drive your point home.

I'm not saying that I have a clean record, free from fallacious personal attacks, but c'mon... I see this way too often. For the same reasons we don't discuss religion, let's pull back the ad hominem responses and try to remain civil.

[AZhitman]

The government doesn't just go out and "work a little harder" to buy its "groceries." I won't waste my time explaining to you the difference between an individual working extra hours or getting a raise vs. the government increasing/introducing taxes.

I'm actually surprised IB floated that weak mess. Nowhere NEAR analogous.

And a big +1 on bringing some reason into this. No matter how much you dislike "talking points", bad analogies litter the discussion just as much.

There's not a damn thing WRONG with the statement "spending is too high".

If you're that hell-bent to tack on "...for the amount of revenue we bring in", then by all means feel free to travel the globe with your Sharpie, and edit all those bumper stickers.

The rest of us know what it means.

[IBCoupe]

Maybe they're just making it more understandable to the populace? They're not mutually exclusive. Just not detailed enough for detail oriented people like us.

You and I can comprehend the difference. Can middle America?

And your position that the difference between the two intentionally "creates a wall of lies"? It's a stretch. Fo realz.

I applaud the effort, Greg, but the talking point is structured as, "We don't have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem." That right there frames the issue as being exclusive of revenue-increasing measures.

Perhaps "wall of lies" was hyperbole, but it's dishonest, it's widespread, and it's organized intentionally to be so.

[IBCoupe]

While I agree that the budget imbalance is obviously part-revenue/part-spending, I'm going to reject this analogy.

The government doesn't just go out and "work a little harder" to buy its "groceries." I won't waste my time explaining to you the difference between an individual working extra hours or getting a raise vs. the government increasing/introducing taxes.

Agreed. I wasn't looking for a perfect analogy, I was looking for an analogy which presented the similar costs and issues: we spend for usually a good reason (groceries), and we don't have enough money to pay for it. So we either come up with more money (work harder) or cut spending (buy less). I know the government doesn't simply "work harder," but that wasn't what I was driving at. This was:

1. There's more we can and probably should do than just cut spending.
2. We're spending for a reason.

I'm not sure what "off the table" means in this context, but I'm looking at it more like they are strongly in support of spending cuts and less in favor of tax increase. If they were simply supporting all three (supposed) options, it would make them appear as indecisive and wishy-washy. They have an agenda, and they're pushing for it. Big surprise?

Maybe I've missed something (been very busy over the past few months), but I can't recall many Democrats in congress that are entertaining large spending cuts.

I draw a distinction between advocating a policy and mischaracterizing the issue so that your policy is the only one that "makes sense." When you're telling a large crowd that "we don't have a revenue problem," obviously then the solution isn't to increase revenues.

You and I may be able to tell the difference and know what it is, but if anyone says that we should raise taxes in addition to cutting spending, those people become liars once the debate is framed this way. "Why would you raise taxes? We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem!"

Oy...

Guys, seriously. This type of nonsense does absolutely nothing to help drive your point home.

I'm not saying that I have a clean record, free from fallacious personal attacks, but c'mon... I see this way too often. For the same reasons we don't discuss religion, let's pull back the ad hominem responses and try to remain civil.

For the record, my personal attacks were not fallacious. They weren't ad hominem. I didn't say, "You're wrong because you're a jackass." I said, "You're wrong and you're a jackass." That's why I characterized the personal attacks as "superfluous" in one post.

Yes, I was uncivil, but I wasn't illogical. Often times I see Matt (Aud) taking an opportunity to point to an ad hominem argument in a sarcastic response, but I do my very best to consider arguments for their face value.

[AZhitman]

The problem is, the current administration IS saying "work harder" - i.e., secure additional taxpayer revenues.

Some of us aren't ok with that.

So, while the bumperstickery "we don't have a revenue problem" is inaccurate in and of itself, it's equally wrong to say, "we don't have a spending problem".

I don't think you disagree with that, but I also don't see you attacking it, even though it's being touted as well (although probably not as loudly).

Consider this: Are you POSITIVE that McConnell's statement is fallacious? If you are, you're a damn swell economist. Fact is, you can't say WHAT would happen if we cut spending - revenues JUST MIGHT BE sufficient. Therefore, you can be irked all you want - but that doesn't make the statement wrong.

[IBCoupe]

The current Administration, to my knowledge, hasn't said that we can't cut spending. In fact, I do recall hearing a clip of President Obama saying that we do need to cut some spending. One of the bipartisan commissions that came out with a blend-solution was his.

Again, when I see "we don't have a spending problem" as a talking point made by every prominent Democratic figure in every press conference, then, Greg, you'll see me upset about it.

And, yes, Greg, I'm positive that McConnell's statement is fallacious. Republicans have said they want to only cut spending, but always seem to hedge on the issues of Defense, Medicare and Social Security. So, let's look at the rest of the budget. In 2009, the rest of the budget made up 38% of federal spending. In 2009, we had a 40% budget shortfall. TARP wasn't big enough to even make a dent in it. Cutting spending only would cripple the government and kill the very poor. Anyone and everyone that isn't running for office says we need a mix.

[AZhitman]

I don't see hedging - I see an unwillingness for the left to dig deep into their pet projects, just as it'd be tough for the right to cut into Defense, Medicare and SSA.

But it can be done. Hell, I'd START with the military (colossal waste abounds)... Medicare and SS fraud ALONE would amount to significant cuts.

Stacking all your chips on "what Republicans say" is no defense to your claim of fallaciousness - it's a diversion, a parallel argument.

Again, you can't say with any degree of certainty that sufficient cuts wouldn't reveal that revenues, are, in fact, sufficient. But if you want to stick to your position, you;d better come up with something more than "Republicans said..."

In fact, I do recall hearing a clip of President Obama saying that we do need to cut some spending.

Yeah. More specifically, he said he'd go "line-by-line through the Federal budget...". That was years ago. Bullcrap.

[IBCoupe]

Greg, of course sufficient cuts would reveal that revenues are enough. That's why they'd be "sufficient." Remember, that's not what I'm critical of. McConnell's comments aren't fallacious because it's absolutely impossible, it's fallacious because it's not a realistic approach. It would require cutting out 40% of the federal budget, and chances are, once you get past 8%, people are going to start getting unhappy.

And you might well be happy going after Defense. But you're not the Republican Leadership. I'm sure if you were in charge, you wouldn't be sending out retarded talking points the way they do.

[AZhitman]

I couldn't be Republican Leadership, because I'm too socially liberal... and I abhor "playing nice" with the other side, especially when that side says stupid things.

I'd have pushed Pelosi's antique a$$ down the steps of the Capitol long ago. Call it a public service.

[heliochrome85]

I'd have pushed Pelosi's antique a$$ down the steps of the Capitol long ago. Call it a public service.

i would have done the same for mccain. i guess we're both PATRIOTS

[AZhitman]

(...or domestic terrorists...)

[heliochrome85]

whatever. badasses none the less.


WHERES MY LEATHER DUSTER?

[96Qowner]

Here's a chart of Federal spending as a percentage of GDP from 1903 until now. I can't see any sign that we don't have a spending problem:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_ ... chart.html

We wouldn't need more revenue if we didn't have a spending problem. Isn't it obvious? Spending remained fairly stable at 35% of GDP for 30 years. 2 years later, it's approaching 45%. We have a spending problem.

[IBCoupe]

You're still missing the point.

[heliochrome85]

maybe im just being obstinate. but i dont understand why the right refuses to recognize that we went through a recession, and that previous spending models DO NOT FIT THE SITUATION. if they want to decrease spending, START ALLOWING DEFENSE CUTS TO BE PUT ON THE TABLE.

[IBCoupe]

I'm sure there's a rational reason to consider stimulus spending to be part and parcel of all other spending, but I can't figure out what it is. Maybe someone else can explain it.

[AZhitman]

maybe im just being obstinate. but i dont understand why the left refuses to recognize that we went through a recession, and that previous spending models DO NOT FIT THE SITUATION. If they want this country to survive, they've gotta understand that government is not in place to feed your babies or pay your bills.

FTFY

(...but I agree with your original statement as well... cuts to foreign aid and defense spending are mandatory, and honestly, the defense cuts could be SOLELY from wasteful spending and wouldn't impact security.)

[IBCoupe]

Of course, a lot of the defense spending we see as wasteful might not be.

Talk of the Nation had a defense department rep answering calls. A former soldier called in and said the Army sent him to Estonia for some training, and he said that was wasteful spending, because the training could have been done in California or Virginia just as easily. The DoD Rep explained that the purpose of putting training in Estonia wasn't just to have training - it was to remind Russia, China, Iran, etc. that we can have boots on the ground anywhere we want at any time.

[AZhitman]

Of course, a lot of the defense spending we see as wasteful might not be.

That wasn't what I meant, and you're correct there.

There's still a ton of waste.

[IBCoupe]

Right, but I don't think there's nearly enough to avoid real pains.

[AZhitman]

I do.

Hang out with some of our military folks - you'll see.

[heliochrome85]

there is a ton of waste, but in the era following 9/11 its the 3rd rail. if you try to touch defense spending, you die. and its largely the right who have empowered this view. and largely the left, who have refused to do anything about it. hence the situation we are in now. im so sick and tired of defending the democrats its not even funny.

[AZhitman]

^ THAT.

[IBCoupe]

I hang out with plenty of military folk. I just got back from a trip for work, and I heard something from a Chief that I've heard many times. There's a particular piece of equipment that every submarine today is equipped with and is never used. In theory, it's a fantastic piece of technology. In practice, if it turns on at all, it fails to adequately do its job. There's a cheaper (and fairly rudimentary) technology that crews use instead. In fact, some crews have even started using the piece of technology itself the way they would the other thing, as just a dead piece of metal - they don't turn the sucker on.

That's probably hundreds of millions of dollars in that one example. I know that there are tons like this.

BUT I also know that the federal deficit is so large that this is barely a pin-prick. Should we address it? Absolutely! Should we expect that we're not going to have to make some painful changes, too? Absolutely not!

[stebo0728]

Here you go, pookums: HIGH SPENDING ISN'T A PROBLEM IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT. Thus, the problem can't be that spending is high. The problem must be that spending is not in line with revenues. If it helps, try reading that very slowly.

Theres the source of the problem, and the disconnect. Yes the problem is with the balance, but the problem is with your all caps'd phrase above. WE CANT AFFORD IT. But because you cant afford it isnt always a "because I dont have enough money" problem. Sometimes....just sometimes.....its a "maybe I pay too many bills" problem. And thats the huge fiscal difference between the right and left. The left want to spend as much as they can re-balancing the natural inbalances out there, and just tax the hell out of everyone to pay for it, but especially tax the hell out of the stinking rich folks, the folks who sat on their a** and got rich cause of mommy or daddy, or some other stroke of luck. And everyone other poor sap out there just cant help it they are poor, they bust their a**'s too everyday and just are UNFORTUNATE. Bull-hockey and rubbish, revenue is not the problem because you are already getting the max out of everyone that you can without inciting revolt. Therefore you must CUT SPENDING. Yes across the board, Repubes and D-emo's alike. BUT apparently holding that position just means you dont think we should pay tax at all and are an anarchist. Somehow the logic of the left equates "we already pay enough" to "we shouldnt pay anything", dont quite get that one, but hey we are talking about the left logic.

[IBCoupe]

But because you cant afford it isnt always a "because I dont have enough money" problem.

That's the only reason you can't afford something. That's the definition of not being able to afford something. There may be any number of underlying reasons why you don't have enough money, but the bottom line is: the two columns aren't in line with one another.

You want to propose spending cuts as a solution. Great! Let's look at the budget thoroughly! Let's come up with solutions! But don't act like tax increases are off the table, because I think when you get done calculating up all your spending cuts, you're still going to be short.

As for the rest of your rant: lolwut?

[stebo0728]

As for the rest of your rant: lolwut?

puff...puff...uhhh what comes next? smh

[stebo0728]

That's the only reason you can't afford something. That's the definition of not being able to afford something. There may be any number of underlying reasons why you don't have enough money, but the bottom line is: the two columns aren't in line with one another.

Ok so I was a bit off there, what I was meaning was that just because you cant afford your needs doesnt always mean you "dont have enough income" but sometimes means you "pay too much other crap"

[IBCoupe]

But if you have enough money to cover it then you don't have a crisis. Spending for things you don't need is a problem, but the bigger problem is that we don't have enough money. You want to start defunding aspects of the federal government, then that's another discussion, and it's something we can consider in conjunction with our current efforts. But to say that we don't have a revenue problem is disingenuous framing of the issue, and leads to a less-than-ideal (and perhaps less-than-sufficient) solution.

[IBCoupe]

What's starting to worry me, now, is that even people of above-average intelligence like yourselves are starting to buy the bumper sticker, when all objective, bipartisan assessments of the issue suggest that spending cuts alone would be woefully inadequate. Letting all of the Bush Tax Cuts expire immediately would help a lot, but it would hurt a lot, too, in the recession*, and wouldn't go the whole distance, either.

If we're serious about fixing this, we're going to have to brace ourselves for a ton of hurt.

*And if we're so eager to accept that kind of economic theory as fact, maybe we should all back off of the other stimulus measures. That is, at least from the "Holy crap, look at all that money" approach. Mismanagement is still fair game.