One can negotiate when there is room to negotiate. At present the Democrats
want to maintain spending levels that will certainly push the government into
bankruptcy.We have a choice: The Republicans put forth a plan to
put us on a path to balance the budget and pay off the debt. It was called Cut,
Cap and Balance. The only plan the Democrats have put forth is
national bankruptcy (at least that will be the result).Both parties
have spent far too much money. Both share the blame for the current debt. There
is a difference:1. Republicans have sponsored and pushed several
different balanced budget amendments over the years. They came within one vote
of sending one to the states in the late 1990s.2. Every time a balanced
budget amendment has been voted on in congress, almost 100% of the Republicans
vote for it (if not 100%). Every time it has gone down to defeat because of the
Democrats.3. Democrats chastise and ridicule Republicans for not spending
enough. They do this in the press at every opportunity. They they attempt to
blame the Republicans for the debt.Obams and the Democrats own this
Rock, there's a difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. Only
one president in the last thirty years has managed to balance the budget: Bill
Clinton.It's the Republicans who are gumming up this process. They
refuse to consider any plan that includes tax revenue as a variable, even though
there's simply no way of balancing the budget without increased tax revenue.
Obama proposed a plan that was twice as ambitious as the GOP's in terms of its
ability to balance the budget and lower the debt. But the Republicans would not
accept it because it included rollbacks of tax cuts and tax breaks for the
wealthy. This made their position clear, as does this article: tax breaks for
the wealthy are a bigger GOP priority than fiscal responsibility.
I was too young to know anything of Reagan- but I have since learned a great
deal. I have studied debate, law, politics, philosophy, and many other things
since his office- and there is one thing that stands out to me about the man.He appointed William Rehnquist to the Supreme Court of the United States
- Whatever people think of Reagan, good or bad, is irrelevant to me. Rehnquist
was and, with how society is heading, will most likely always be the greatest
justice to ever have served this country.His appointment alone is
worthy of the highest recognition. In doing so- Reagan, though an imperfect man,
left a lasting influence that had a great impact on our society today.
Amazing how Reagan would be siding with the Democrats.
"There was a consistency to Reagan on taxes, which was basically that he
cut them when he could, but raised them when he had to. He was not dogmatic on
this issue, as his current-day followers seem to think" Take
that Tea Partiers.When he left office in 1989, federal taxes
accounted for 18.4 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, compared with
the 18 percent average for the two decades before he took office. By contrast,
tax revenues are forecast to be just 14.4 per cent of GDP in 2011.Pretty straightforward. We need more federal income (TAXES). The
Republicans are going to end up with egg on their faces and it will be because
they let the TPers dictate to them. The Ignorant Party of Me, My, Mine (TPers)
will set them back for decades. Long after the TP party is gone. I am a man
without a party now. I am certainly not a dem, but it is increasingly hard to ID
myself as a Rep.
"no simple way of balancing the budget without raising taxes"?If your "budget" is too large, then a simple way to balance it
would be to "cut spending". What a novel idea! I wonder
how come the "experts" didn't think of this?
Just read this article commentors and then think a little before you comment!
Please also note that we are down 4% in GDP tax revenue. That means we are
collecting 4% less in taxes now than then, which is huge considering the
inflation of the past 30 years. Our problem is the "instant
gratification" generation wants theirs now! When did this country last
build any infrastucture things like past generations did 40 or so years ago?
Where is our electrical grid today, our bridges & highways, our green energy
projects(wind, solar, water ect)? C'mon people unlock whatever brain power you
have and think about not just now but the future and demand the same from your
Great article. Just in case the wingnuts missed this:[
Yet during Reagan's two terms, he presided over 18 increases in the debt
ceiling. He even publicly scolded Congress for playing hardball politics with
the debt limit and bringing the nation "to the edge of default before
facing its responsibility." That's a passage the White House and
congressional Democrats are now fond of recycling to their advantage. ]
The republicans refuse to discuss eliminating tax breaks and corperate welfare.
Why does the oil companies need $4 Billion in subsidies, and they will not pay
Royalities for oil extracted from public lands. The last straw was writing off
the cost of the Gulf oil spill.Next is subsidies to farming interests. I
watched King Corn the other day, amazing we pay farmers above market price for
commodities that should be market priced.Wall Street brokers pay a special
low rate on their business taxes, much lower than other businesses. Why? They
only sell paper and contribute nothing to creating jobs. Middle class people
with money in their pockets buying goods and services create jobs, not the
people who trade bubble gum cards called stocks, commodities and other junk
Another Kool-Aid drinking AP reporter. "Bartlett noted that
Reagan's tax increases took back about half of his signature 1981 tax cut."
So, after Reagan's tax increases, he'd still cut taxes by 50 percent from when
he took office."By contrast, tax revenues are forecast to be
just 14.4 per cent of GDP in 2011."According to the CBO, tax
revenues will increase from 14.4 percent of GDP in 2011 to 18 percent in 2013
and a whopping 20 percent by 2015. Funny how the AP guy left that part out. What
a joke 21st century journalism is.
The GOP is just using this opportunity to fulfill their agenda. They want to do
away with most social support programs and nearly all the proposed cuts attack
social security, medicaid and medicare. Plus reduce corporate tax rates, again!
If you can't kill the beast you hate, you then try to starve it to death. Tax
rates are the lowest they have been in over 50 years. We are drowning in debt
because no one wants to pay their fair share of taxes anymore. So we will cut
taxes for millionaires & billionaires by cutting social security from
grandma and grandpa to balance our budget. What a sad and selfish society we
I do not understand the mindset of my great, great grandfather as he left his
family of 13 children to march off to war, barefooted and with his own gun, to
fight to preserve the life style of the plantation owner and his slave enabled
cotton industry. Nor do I think I want to. Fortunately, his sons, including my
great grandfather saw life differently and became Union soldiers. I see the same
philosophy manifested today as so many want to entrust earths resources and our
nations wealth to the hands of the noble, aristocratic few. We call them the job
producers. We march off barefooted to preserve their wealth and way of life.
Taxing them would destroy our freedoms and liberties- or so they tell us.
So what is the difference to day than when Reagan was President. The article
seems to direct the thought towards his willingness when necessary to raise
taxes. This is true, but that was based on working with the opposite party in
an in control in the US House of Representatives. This group as now refuse to
cut spending. So, the real difference is the person in the Office of the
President, who refuse to compromise with the opposite party that is in control
of the US House of Representatives. Reagan would have led the country to a
consensus and a solution. This President prefers to lead it to division and the
failure to find a solution. The comparison is reflective between leadership and
pandering to a political base mired in 1930's solutions.
@ Mormon DemClinton did NOT balance the budget. Newt Gingrich and
the Republican congress balanced the budget. Clinton even shut down the
government in order to prevent a balanced budget, then he blamed it on the
Republicans.We all saw how much the Democrats will spend when they
control everything in the government. After the 2008 elections the Democrats all
acted like kids in a candy store with "Daddy" paying the bill.You are correct, there is a difference between talking the talk and
walking the walk. Republicans will vote for balanced budget amendments and the
Democrats will not.
Thanks for a great article. Funny how even the posters can't see how their
postings represent the stubbornness of one side or another.
I am confused. Sean Hannity swears Reagan never compromised and never raised
taxes. Must be the liberal biased news media that is distorting the truth.
Especially that bastion of liberalism the D-News.
When Reagan took office the national debt was pushing a trillion dollars. When
he left, it was up around three. He replaced "tax and spend" with
"borrow and spend," and now the system he created is crushing us. We
are still paying for "the Reagan recovery." I am sick of
hearing about "job creators" (who aren't creating jobs, despite huge
financial incentives) whining about "spending money we don't have."
We have it more correctly THEY have it. Remember the tax cuts (for the rich)?
Remember the bailout (of the rich)? So why the crisis, and where are the jobs?
Can't ask the rich that question Orin will jump on you for that.
@AlbemarYour whole post is one giant cliche. Raising taxes on my
boss isn't going to save social security or medicare. Think about it. You want
to raise taxes on people who already pay the majority taxes so you can keep
funding badly managed programs and delay the inevitable. Not exactly 'outside
the box' thinking there.
"According to the CBO, tax revenues will increase from 14.4 percent of GDP
in 2011 to 18 percent in 2013 and a whopping 20 percent by 2015. Funny how the
AP guy left that part out. "Do you know why it is that way?
Remember last December when they extended the bush tax cuts? That was a 2 year
extension. CBO estimates have to assume that the 2 yr extension is only 2 years
since that's what was passed. That means that the CBO projections for 2013 and
2015 are based on the assumption that all the bush tax cuts that were extended
only temporarily... end.
Well the "Judge", (where do you guys come up with these names) first I
would like to know where the CBO said that. And second I'm going to
pont out that (although it is so absolutely obvious) the only ways to increase
the percentage of taxes to GDP is to either increase taxes, or drastically
shrink the size of the GDP. So what is it you are saying that the
CBO is claiming is going to happen? That we are going to significantly raise
taxes, or that we are going to have a massive contraction of the economy?
Rock..... just stop. Please. To say one side was saintly, and the other the
devils advocate is just representing the facts. Stop already, we've had
enough.Reagan had some very strong points, and as a communicator, he
was one of the best is helping the nation understand what it was he was trying
to achieve. But even the patron saint of the Republican party knew when to bend
and try to balance ideology with the pragmatic need to get things done. I am sure no one in the Reagan administration liked the covert funding
of the Sandinestas. Nor the drugs for arms. Nor arming and supporting an
Iraqi government, that just a short time later we would have to return to take
out of power. Nor the fact that the US government funded much of the Taliban
activities when we were trying to unseat the Soviet control in that part of the
world Reagan dealt with many groups I am sure he would have preferred not deal
with. But he understood sometimes you bend for the greater good.
What we have now is an unwillingness to bend, just to say you did
"compromise"Reagan knew how to compromise.
Reagan has alway received too much credit. Granted, he did the best he could.
Even great for the ones that choose not to live within their means. That
accounts for the majority.He very seldom took a stance against the
democratic congress his first four years. As a result, the national debt
increased three fold under his watch (2 terms). He was one of the first truly
BIG SPENDERS. Go look at the data, he still holds the record. I feel sorry for
the current and future generations. We have mortgaged their futures in the form
of debt and taxes.As for our relatively low federal tax burden...
states and local governments have made up the difference. Check out which states
are hurting the most right now... the biggest spenders.
Obama's debt (defined as debt accrued since he's been President) has skyrocketed
and is more than all other President's combined since the founding of the
Republic). He spent a trillion dollars alone on
"stimulus," and we're still at almost 10% unemployment. So much for
stimulating the economy, or having the effect of reducing unemployment that he
promised!He appears to me to not be alarmed at being on the
precipice of economic disaster. Everything is still a teleprompter-induced
talking point to him. He's campaigner-in=chief, still focused on political base
and favoring his friends in the labor unions and community organizers (rabble
rousers) like SEIU, ACORN... Opening the federal coffers to them through Obama
Care, bail outs, stimulus.Amazing to me how Obama seems to get
"a pass" every time from lame-brain media who are in the tank for him.
Pray for our country....
Ronald Reagan was the best President of the 20th century and the last true
American President.Both parties complained about what Ronald Reagan did
when he was in office.And later both parties have destroyed this country
in the name of Ronald Reagan.And both parties continue to make fase
statements about Ronald Reagan to make themselves look good while they continue
to destroy our freedoms and nation because both sides only want power.RIP
Ronald Reagan.And I hope the 2 parties destroy each other first before
they destroy the United States of America.
Reagan's unpardonable sin the that Democrats will never forgive him for? He won
the Cold War and brought down the Iron Curtain.
@Rifleman"Reagan's unpardonable sin the that Democrats will
never forgive him for? He won the Cold War and brought down the Iron Curtain.
"Maybe you should let Democrats answer the question of what
democrats think because for me and many other Democrats and liberals his
unpardonable sin was trickle-down economics that over 3 decades of belief in
that fraud has led us from having the top 10% control 30% of the wealth in 1980
to controlling 47% of the wealth by 2007.
Gr8dane, boy golly gee, you sure have all the talking points down, dontcha,
dude? Good work. But do you ever take a sec to think about what you are saying?
For instance, you claim: Obama's debt (defined as debt
accrued since he's been President) has skyrocketed and is more than all other
President's combined since the founding of the Republic). Really?
The debt when Obama took office was 10.7 trillion. Today it stands
at 14.3 trillion. Let's make the numbers easier for you. Let's say
it was an even 10 when he took office, and lets say its 15 today. So obviously,
through simple subtraction 15-10=5, we find a difference of 5. Now 5 is less
then 10. So if we are saying Obama has added 5 trillion to the debt (yeah, yeah,
I know it really is a lot less then this that he has added, but like I said, we
are making the numbers easy for you) obviously that is not more then all
previous presidents (since the founding) have added combined, as you claim. And good heavens, we didn't even add the debt from WWII .
@ I'll call it | 2:25 p.m. July 24, 2011 Well said. While I believe
he was a great communicator and excelled at foreign policy, why anyone would
cite Reagan as a positive economic influence I cannot understand. Trickle On
economics does not work. Replacing tax and spend with borrow and spend does not
work. Spending trillions on Star Wars programs that would never materialize was
irresponsible, if not reprehensible.Now, I think we should hold
taxes in check, and hold spending in check. If I were President, the first
thing I would do would be to propose the elimination of the cap on Social
Security taxes. THe rich should pay Social Security taxes on every cent they
earn. But then we could cut their income taxes some, not touch the general fund
to fund SS, and start looking at programs we should not be financing at the
federal level anyway.An interesting article in the Dallas Morning
News this morning illustrated the problem in Washington. It listed all the
federal funding slated for August, proposing entire programs to fund or not fund
per different scenarios. What congress should be doing is cutting all programs
across the board.
Citing the percentage of income that was paid in taxes is misleading.
Because low-income levels are not taxed, prosperity means that people's incomes
are farther above that "floor." By cutting tax rates, Reagan helped
fuel prosperity. Prosperity raises people's taxable income.Low tax
rates encourage investment and growth.