To compromise would mean making U.S. economy worse

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 9:52 p.m.

    Yes, shoot the messenger and ignore the problem. The left wing lemmings seem determined to do it the Greek way.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 9:25 a.m.

    At least the DN had the courtesy to post the source:

    David A. Ridenour is president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank.


    That should explian just about everything.
    Biased? Not in the least.

    Think Tank -- aka, Lobbyist.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Dec. 16, 2012 1:19 p.m.

    So, if you don't fall in line with the conservative think tank mantra...

    You are an enemy?

    This type of DN sponsored journalism invites a civil dialogue?

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Dec. 16, 2012 11:04 a.m.

    It boggles the mind. Someone at the DN went through aaaalllll the syndicated columns in the entire nation, looking for something to fill some space on the editorial page. I'm imagining it, all those op-ed pieces, dozens, hundreds maybe. And somehow, they picked . . . this. Economic analysis from someone who clearly knows nothing about economics, political analysis from someone who gets his political news from the planet Klaatu. It boggles the mind, truly it does.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 16, 2012 6:58 a.m.

    America has seen good economic times and bad economic times throughout history.

    Obama is not talking about some radical tax policies that have never been tried.

    So, I will ask AGAIN.

    Why is Obama's proposed top tax rate of 39.6% a known job killer when Reagan's 50% rate was heralded as GREAT for the economy and jobs? The economy also did fine under Clinton's rate of 39.6%.

    It is difficult to "sell" the GOP tax claims to Americans when recent and not-so recent history does not support them.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 16, 2012 12:31 a.m.

    "If you have any doubt about this, consider this: Since 1950, the top marginal tax rate has ranged from 28 percent to 91 percent, yet revenue has remained fairly consistent throughout — between 18 percent and 20 percent of GDP."

    Taxes currently bring in 15% of GDP, not 18-20%. We need them back at their average rate. Spending is currently 22.9% of GDP, so if we get taxes to 20% and spending down to 21% we'll be okay. As long as the deficit is lower than the rate of economic growth, our debt/GDP percentage will decline, and that's the only figure that really means anything.