Comments about ‘House Democrats unveil budget plan with tax hikes’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 7 2014 2:07 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Revenue is the ticket. It's silly to think that debts can be paid without revenue.

The popular Republican mantra of "It's not about revenue, it's about spending" is silly.

It's about revenue AND spending.

We had much more revenue when the highest earners were taxed considerably more.

But Reagonomics (where coddled high earners were supposed to let wealth trickle down and improve the economy for everyone) has proven to be a complete MYTH . . . a fantasy that Rush Limbaugh still tells his gullible fans. We need REVENUE.

And that means taxing high earners the way they were taxed back when we actually balanced the budget.

Republican fantasies are nothing but fantasies. That's why they're called fantasies.

4601
Salt Lake City, UT

How creative of the Democrats - tax and spend, subsidize their voter base and have no plan for long term industrial growth to provide middle class jobs. Central planning, class warfare, omnipotent government and demonizing success, it sounds like Venezuela or Cuba's economic plan. The second step is to complain about the other side of the isle being obstructive.

Mountanman
Victor, ID

We must learn to live on less income but not the government! NOOOOO!

David
Centerville, UT

GaryO,

The Treasury received just under $2.5 Trillion in 2012. That's a lot of money.

But we spent over $3.5 Trillion. That's a lot of money too.

The total debt is over $17.5 Trillion. We add $270 billion to the debt...daily.

We pay $200 billion annually...on interest for the federal deficit. That's money that isn't going towards education, roads, defense, or unemployment benefits. That's the price to borrow money.

Some project that we will spend $1 Trillion annually...on interest by 2020.

Balancing the budget and reducing debt is tough but everyone says it must be done.

Republicans propose reducing government spending to balance and pay down debt. Democrats want to increase taxes and increasing spending.

Neither is easy. Obama commissioned a group to come up with a plan. They recommended a mix of both spending cuts and tax increases. That's what I favor.

I would like to see reduced spending first before I trust the government with more tax money.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Hey 4601 -

You think Democrats are all about "tax and spend."

That may be, but Republicans are about "don't tax and spend even more" . . . Like the Great Right Wing Hero Ronald Reagan who TRIPLED the national debt, and his devotee, GW Bush, who more than DOUBLED it once again.

The difference is that Democrats are all about responsibility and Republicans are fiscally irresponsible. If a government is going to spend, then it should have an adequate revenue base.

Reagan was completely irresponsible, and Republicans still idolize him for being so irresponsible. He reduced taxes for the highest earners on the assumption that the highest earners would just let their incomes trickle down to everyone else . . . kind of like taking the first shower and using the same dirty water for successive layers of underlings.

. . . Beautiful in theory (ugh), but it doesn't work at all.

The very responsible President and mulitasker Bill Clinton on the other hand, raised taxes for the highest earners a little closer to what they should be, and he balanced the budget for several consecutive years.

So you see, it's much better to tax and spend than it is to not tax and spend.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

David -

It does not make sense to focus on reducing spending first. We need to invest in infrastructure, which would both make this nation more competitive and get people working again. The nation needs to invest like businesses do.

When Henry Ford went broke with his first endeavor, he got a loan, invested in employees and infrastructure and made history. If he had focused on reducing spending first, he would not have gotten anywhere.

Of course, we should not spend money frivolously, but the nation must spend money to offer good governance.

We should be spending even more money investing in infrastructure, research, and sustainable energy to keep this nation competitive. Doing so would also put a whole lot of people back to work. Obama's jobs' bill of 2011 would have done just that, but the Republicans shot it down.

From what I can see, the Democrats consistently make great proposals and work hard to make good things happen; and the Republicans routinely and reflexively shoot down every workable solution.
Republicans don't seem to have much to offer of any value.

And do we really need to spend more on our military than the next 15 nations combined?

David
Centerville, UT

GaryO

For Republicans, like me, we feel the opposite. But I understand your point and it is a good one: that investment and additional government spending in infrastructure, research and sustainable energy will keep the nation competitive.

My concern, and I suppose many others feel the same way, is that government has not shown itself trustworthy of additional revenues. They increase spending commensurate (actually above and beyond) with its increases in revenue. Likewise, spending has been spurious, for example awarding cash for clunkers (bad idea), and investing in companies that go bankrupt (Solyndra). There is evidence that Obama rewarded friends with tax payer dollars invested in their companies.

I'm not saying your ideas are wrong or bad. I would simply prefer to have the government first show steps toward reduced spending. In my mind that doesn't mean arrive at a balanced budget before increasing taxes. Rather, reduce spending and then raise revenue to mitigate draconian spending cuts (that would be required without increased revenue).

These are not just my ideas, but also the proposals of Simpson-Bowles, Obama's appointed commission.

SCfan
clearfield, UT

Immigrants would be mostly low wage, low tax payers. And, with unemployment still high, where will their jobs come from in the first place? No way that amounts to 100s of billions of tax revenue. Plus, the plan based on a 10 year 1.5 trillion would add over 100 billion a year needed. This, and no expected harm to growth? What's the definition of insanity?, doing the same thing over and over....................

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

GaryO,
gross federal debt increased more in BO's first 3-1/2 years than in all of bush's 8 years, and more in BO's worst year than during the entire Reagan presidency, and you really want to make comparisons? HAHAHAHAHA

don't forget that Reagan had a dem house, where spending bills originate. BO's deficits have reduced since he got a GOP house.

No, history does NOT side with dems on deficit control.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

David –

You’re not saying my “ideas are wrong or bad?” Ok. But just to be clear I AM saying that Republican ideas are both wrong AND bad.

Solyndra? Well, not all investments work out. So what? That means we should not invest? I disagree.

Cash for clunkers was a bad idea? Maybe so. But that’s relative. Was it a bad idea compared to say . . . declaring war on Iraq based on phony claims of WMD’s ready to destroy America? How many trillion dollars is that going to end up wasting?

Reducing necessary spending, and preventing necessary investments is wrong and bad.

Helping the rich get richer at the EXPENSE of everyone else is wrong too.

Republican ideas are both wrong AND bad.

By constantly keeping America and Americans from achieving the success we deserve, Right Wingers are in fact America’s Enemy Number ONE.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments