|
| Posted by: Boldwin
- [221047234] Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 01:15
Why republicans must never never agree to raising taxes, not ever. And no the answer isn't Grover Norquist.So in 1982, Reagan struck a deal with the Democrats to raise some business and excise taxes – though not income taxes – in exchange for $280 billion in spending cuts over the next six years. As Reagan wrote in his diary at the time: "The tax increase is the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts."
But, of course, the Democrats were lying. Instead of cutting $280 billion, they spent an additional $450 billion – only $140 billion of which went to the Reagan defense buildup that ended the Evil Empire.
Meanwhile, Reagan's tax cuts brought in an extra $375 billion in government revenue in the next six years – as that amiable, simple-minded dunce Reagan always said they would. His tax cuts funded the entire $140 billion defense buildup, with $235 billion left over.
If Democrats had lied only a little and merely held spending at the same level, Reagan could have smashed the Russkies, produced the largest peacetime expansion in U.S. history with his tax cuts and produced a $235 billion budget surplus. (Jobs created in September 1983: 1.1 million; jobs created in September 2011: 150,000.)
But the Democrats not only refused to implement any budget cuts, they hiked government spending. To the untrained eye, that appears to be the exact opposite of cutting the budget.
---
Unable to learn from the first kick of a mule, President George H.W. Bush made the exact same deal with Democrats just a few years later.
Pretending to care about the deficit – created exclusively by their own profligate spending – Democrats demanded that Bush agree to a "balanced budget" package with both spending cuts and tax increases.
In June 1990, Bush did so, agreeing to tax hikes in defiance of his "read-my-lips, no-new-taxes" campaign pledge.
Again, Democrats, being Democrats, produced no spending cuts, and within two years the increased federal spending had led to a doubling of the deficit.
The Democrats didn't care: All that mattered was that they had tricked Bush into breaking his tax pledge, which they celebrated all the way to Bush's defeat in the next election. - She who owns you
-------
Realistically the only possible outcome of a 'compromise' that includes tax hikes is that Democrats effectively take away the Republican Party's central defining issue – low taxes – and the Republicans get nothing in return.
The only possible return to fiscal sanity is drawing a line in the sand on both borrowing and taxing. |
| | | 1 | Razor
ID: 531044240
Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 01:45
|
Do you have a record of how large the budgets were that Reagan requested and if they differed substantially from what Congress passed?
|
|
| | | 2 | Boldwin
ID: 221047234
Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 02:16
|
Wasn't that when they invented the phrase 'dead on arrival' to describe presidential budgets? That's the way I remember it. I'll look into your question more specifically tomorrow.
|
|
| | | 3 | soxzeitgeist
ID: 501023248
Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 09:30
|
The title of this thread should contain the paranthetical remarks as such:
Don't drive on paved streets or highways.
Or call 911.
Don't flush your toilet.
Don't bring your garbage to the curb.
Don't call the police when you get robbed or use the court system to convict the thief.
Lose your farm subsidy.
Don't ask for a taxpayer subsidy to do business in a city or state.
Forget public schools and universities.
Don't expect a social security payment. Or Medicare.
You just lost your contract to bolster your defense industry business. Or whatever service you provide to the nations biggest bidder.
Don't accept government research findings that subsidize research for your industry.
Don't be an (insert industry here) and expect the government to bail you out.
Don't climb to the top of the Masonicly inspired UFO antenna that is the Washington Monument, which is maintained at taxpayer expense. Or visit any of our nations historic and natural resource sites.
Take care not to get hurt and be rescued by fire department paramedic team.
Don't expect federal assistance if a natural disaster destroys your home or business.
Don't expect the military to defend your country.
Don't eat USDA inspected meat, cheese, eggs or produce.
Don't drink, bath or otherwise use the water from municipal water systems.
Don't look at a weather report.
Don't expect a unit of measure like a gallon of gas to be a full gallon.
You can't expect an elevator to work correctly or not fall.
Say no to accepting government money to help develop a product which you then personally patent or copyright and sell for your own profit.
Don't expect research into medical problems. Good bye public library.
Adios GI Bill.
Saranoya free airwaves so your right-wing radio talk show host can blather on.
Forget international travel, as your passport is gone and embassies are closed.
Oh, and don't post your silly thoughts on the internet.
I "get" the no new taxes litmus test for conservative purity, but it's a ridiculous premise. And it's beyond intellectual dishonesty to run with a thread like this. It's sad (but not fully unexpected) you've sunk to this level, B.
|
|
| | | 4 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 11:03
|
So Republicans won't raise any taxes, ever, because nearly 30 years ago Democrats dealt with them in bad faith on this issue?
So rather than deal with the fiscal reality brought about by their own careless spending habits, they will nurse a grudge from 5 administrations ago?
Since that time, of course, the budge has been balanced (during a Democratic administration). So this latest excuse for not acting responsibly rings even more hollow than any of the previous reasons.
Hey, GOP: Grow up. The rest of us have.
|
|
| | | 5 | sarge33rd
ID: 4210322411
Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 12:32
|
Reagans own people, have stated that his tax cuts did NOT raise revenue. The tax INCREASES applied 11 times in 8 years, DID raise revenue.
Your entire premise, is a lie.
|
|
| | | 6 | biliruben
ID: 59551120
Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 12:38
|
Remember people. Ann's a satirist. Truth is irrelevant.
|
|
| | | 7 | Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Thu, Nov 24, 2011, 13:17
|
I encourage all of you to not bother responding to Baldwin's blog post.
I highly recommend however, going to Baldwin's blog, and leaving your comments there. Thanks.
|
|
| | | 8 | Boldwin
ID: 1310112522
Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 09:23
|
So Republicans won't raise any taxes, ever, because nearly 30 years ago Democrats dealt with them in bad faith on this issue?
Show any precedent where democrats honored their end of such a deal.
|
|
| | | 9 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 11:01
|
So the answer is "yes."
|
|
| | | 10 | Boldwin
ID: 1310112522
Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 11:29
|
Hi Lucy.
|
|
| | | 11 | Tree
ID: 41512710
Sat, Nov 26, 2011, 12:24
|
my dog doesn't respond to trolls, so she's not saying hi back.
|
|
| | | 12 | biliruben
ID: 59551120
Tue, Nov 29, 2011, 23:20
|
Looks like the tired mantra has run it's course with the American people (if not with the wingnuts who represent them).
NBC News/Associated Press Poll, March 1982
In order to help reduce the federal budget deficit, which of the following would you prefer — federal income tax increases or federal spending cuts?
13% Tax increases
77% Spending cuts
4% Both (volunteered)
6 % Don’t know
Time/Yankelovich, Skelly & White Poll, November 1985
What do you think should be done to reduce the federal deficit? Do you think we should: cut government spending, raise taxes, or both cut our spending and raise taxes?
54% Cut government spending
4% Raise taxes
36% Both cut our spending and raise taxes
6% Not sure (volunteered)
Gallup, May 1988
There are a number of ways to reduce the federal budget deficit, if the government decides to. Some people say we can reduce the deficit simply by cutting spending. Others say a combination of spending cuts and tax increases is required. Which of these views comes closer to your own?
47% Cutting spending
39% Combination of spending cuts and tax increases
2% Do neither (volunteered)
12% Don’t know/Undecided
Quinnipiac University Poll, March 2010
To reduce the federal budget deficit do you think there should be a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, or that only taxes should be raised, or only that spending should be cut?
42% Combination
4% Only tax increases
49% Only spending cuts
5% Don’t know/No answer
New York Times/CBS News, September 2011
Do you think any plan to reduce the federal budget deficit should include only tax increases, or only spending cuts, or a combination of both tax increases and spending cuts?
3% Only tax increases
21% Only spending cuts
71% Both
5% Don’t know/No answer
Time/Abt SRBI Poll, October 2011
Over all, what do you think is the best way to reduce the federal budget deficit — by cutting federal spending, by raising taxes, or by a combination of both?
29% Cutting federal spending
4% Increasing taxes
65% Combination
3% No answer/Don’t know
|
|
| | | 13 | walk
ID: 348442710
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 09:34
|
NYT: How to Free Congress' Mind
This thread is a perfect segue to this more high-minded opinion piece in today's NYT. Compromise is the context here, as opposed to the premise of this thread.
|
|
| | | 14 | sarge33rd
ID: 510433010
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 11:52
|
oh, and heres that Reagan thing again (from walk's link)
Only a few decades ago, Ronald Reagan — a staunch partisan — criticized the “radical conservatives” in California who thought “ ‘compromise’ was a dirty word” and “wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today.” Not coincidentally, it was under President Reagan that Congress passed the most far-reaching tax reform law of the century, a classic bipartisan compromise.
COMPROMISE...is neither a dirty, nor 4 letter word.
|
|
| | | 15 | Boldwin
ID: 361012916
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 12:28
|
A homeless family living out of their van must not compromise when they pass the candy isle and the kids are begging.
The repo man is right around the corner from the USA and walking this way.
|
|
| | | 16 | Mith
ID: 46121210
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 12:33
|
I agree with Boldwin. Time for the investor class to start paying their fair share so we can stave off the repo man.
|
|
| | | 17 | sarge33rd
ID: 510433010
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 12:40
|
The uber wealthy (those being protected BY the GOP), are not facing the repo man B. GET OFF THE SCHTICK. Its old, false and so full of holes you look like a fkn idiot for holding to it.
|
|
| | | 18 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 12:41
|
Exactly. Forcing people into living in vans needs to stop.
|
|
| | | 19 | Boldwin
ID: 361012916
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 19:48
|
Forcing people into living in vans needs to stop
Then we need to get a marxist off of the levers of the economy pronto.
|
|
| | | 20 | sarge33rd
ID: 510433010
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 19:52
|
That would probably be a true statement, if we HAD a Marxist at the helm. Damn good thing we dont have, huh?
|
|
| | | 21 | Boldwin
ID: 361012916
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 20:18
|
Then how do you explain Obama's recess appointments to the NRLB crushing business? It has to stop before we are all living on the street homeless.
|
|
| | | 22 | sarge33rd
ID: 510433010
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 20:24
|
There have been no "business crushing" appointments there chicken little, none.
|
|
| | | 23 | Boldwin
ID: 361012916
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 20:28
|
Tell it to Boeing and the workers in South Carolina who aren't.
|
|
| | | 24 | sarge33rd
ID: 510433010
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 20:31
|
you tell it to the workers of Washington state, who Boeing is trying to punish.
|
|
| | | 25 | Boldwin
ID: 361012916
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 20:38
|
And here are the 787's not coming off the line.
*note these are not hamburger flipper jobs that are being prevented by Obama's NLRB.
|
|
| | |
| | | 27 | Boldwin
ID: 361012916
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 20:45
|
Obama will be happy when they are built in Italy instead.
Just like he is all drill-baby-drill when he is in socialist Brazil.
Maybe he can make a campaign stop in Italy and pose over there.
|
|
| | | 28 | sarge33rd
ID: 510433010
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 20:58
|
you just keep flinging sh*t against the wall, to see if some of it will stick, dont ya?
|
|
| | | 29 | Boldwin
ID: 361012916
Wed, Nov 30, 2011, 21:07
|
Unions keep going on strike as the rest of us go into a depression [IAM brilliantly went on work-stoppage in 2008 when Boeing desperately needed the new 787 to come online] because a raise from 68K to 80K average pre-benefits wasn't good enuff...and keep pulling that crap every three years and wonder why public support for unions has evaporated.
|
|
| | | 30 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 00:20
|
Using a 2006 cover to demonstrate Obama's current union preferences?
This in response to Boeing offering a contract settlement with its biggest union?
This is like zombie arguing with you sometimes. You just keep trying to resurrect these dead arguments. And you've developed a taste for brains...
|
|
| | | 31 | Tree
ID: 41512710
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 00:27
|
Then we need to get a marxist off of the levers of the economy pronto.
i thought he was a socialist. no, wait. a communist.
wait. which is it? oh, never mind - you STILL don't know the difference, years after flinging the first accusation.
|
|
| | | 32 | Boldwin
ID: 361012916
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 01:40
|
I'll educate you one more time.
All socialists and communists are marxists.
Socialists and communists only differ in their impatience and brutality level in getting to the same destination.
|
|
| | | 33 | biliruben
ID: 358252515
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 18:07
|
Following the terms of a contract between a private sector union and the corporation who signed that contract is brutal Marxist totalitarianism that is destroying our country.
Bat. Shiznet. Crazy.
|
|
| | | 34 | Boldwin
ID: 20111211
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 23:16
|
I haven't used the term totalitarian in this context. I would say driving business down and away is anti-american.
|
|
| | | 35 | Boldwin
ID: 20111211
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 23:16
|
And anti-capitalist obviously.
|
|
| | | 36 | sarge33rd
ID: 32118111
Thu, Dec 01, 2011, 23:31
|
Business wasnt driven down, nor was it driven away. A company WAS 'forced' to honor its contractual agreements as they stood AND to consider their position. That consideration, caused said company, to offer contractual terms to their union employees ALREADY employed. But since you dont count keeping existing jobs as anything of value, you prefer to denigrate the Admin for accomplishing as much. More than a little disingenuous of you.
|
|
| | | 37 | biliruben
ID: 59551120
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 09:45
|
And anti-capitalist obviously.
Obvious to who? Contracts and contract negotiations are right at the heart of capitalism. If they aren't enforced, than both capitalism and rule of law suffer.
Why do you insist that ability of labor to negotiate and compete for their services is anti-capitalist? You don't complain when a widget maker signs a contract, but when it's labor you start whining about marxism.
|
|
| | | 38 | Boldwin
ID: 1111427
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 13:08
|
The funny thing is, Obama never tells a mechanic making 100 grand a year or a longshoreman making 200 grand a year, "At a certain point, you've made enuff money."
Not even when they spend more time striking than working.
|
|
| | | 39 | sarge33rd
ID: 17117210
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 13:11
|
show me, the longshoreman making 200 grand
|
|
| | | 40 | Boldwin
ID: 1111427
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 13:34
|
Just google it for yourself. They average 100 grand. Foremen get 192 grand. The marine clerks average 130+ grand. There are some veteran longshormen positions paying @250 grand a year.
|
|
| | | 41 | sarge33rd
ID: 17117210
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 14:04
|
and you are upset about this, why exactly? As opposed to the CEO who gets 100 million and drives his companies stock down 40%? Do you actually have a valid point to make, or are you merely railing against Obama cause he is black, or cause he has a (D) behind his name, or because of both?
|
|
| | | 42 | Boldwin
ID: 1111427
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 18:13
|
I am upset that guys making three or four times the average pay keep holding our international ports and our commerce hostage every couple of years.
I am upset that guys making twice the national average keep holding our strategic industries for ransom every three years, handing business advantages to Airbus, etc.
And I am upset that they expect the rest of us to support being overcharged to pay those extortionate salaries.
And I am upset at the goons and thugs those unions employ.
|
|
| | | 43 | sarge33rd
ID: 17117210
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 18:19
|
I've worked with the ILA during Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Yes, some of them make very good money, as do the majority of them considering it is largely physical manual labor. HOWEVER, it is also highly dangerous work with a crapload of tonnages moving rapidly, through a narrow bit of land, heavily congested with people,equipment. IOW, it aint easy and it is dangerous. I got no issue with paying people well, when they do hard, risky work. I DO have an issue, with paying CEO NINE FIGURES while they destroy the company paying them.
Now, which is taking advantage of the system?
|
|
| | | 44 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 18:30
|
"I am upset that guys making three or four times the average pay keep holding our international ports and our commerce hostage every couple of years."
Imagine how those upset those of us are at the people who do less actual work, make 300 or 400 times the average, and who hold the economy hostage every few years. But you like to insult those people as marxists, trolls and morons.
Logic is hard.
|
|
| | | 45 | Boldwin
ID: 1111427
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 18:57
|
I never said they don't have some legitimate targets.
Tho they are filthy hypocritical marxist useful idiots.
Which prevents them from making common cause with the Tea Party and making any useful progress.
Which is excellent cover for Ben Bernanke, Jeffery Sachs and other legitimate targets.
|
|
| | | 46 | Boldwin
ID: 1111427
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 19:51
|
You know who else was on Obama's short list to become treasury secretary? Jon Corzine. 'Paging Jon Corzine'
What were the requirements they were looking for?
Genius at screwing the system up?
Probably. I seriously mean that.
|
|
| | | 47 | sarge33rd
ID: 17117210
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 19:53
|
The Tea Party? Those dirty rotten fascist self serving sanctimonious ones? THAT Tea Party?
Why B, do you find it either necessary, or your 'right', to insult everyone with whom you disagree?
|
|
| | | 48 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 20:02
|
There is no evidence that Corzine was seriously considered by Obama, let alone on his short list.
Nice example of a strawman argument, however.
Which prevents them from making common cause with the Tea Party
Show me any evidence, any at all, that the Tea Party is trying to make common cause with OWS.
|
|
| | | 49 | Boldwin
ID: 1111427
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 21:07
|
PD
Slow down, unplug the emotions and concentrate on reading what I actually say.
If the OWS was there to accomplish anything other than benefit Obama, Bernanke and Jeffery Sachs...
...they would need to make common cause with the TP.
I didn't say the TP was interested in sharing a porta-potty.
The TP has plenty of populist tendencies. They aren't in bed with Bernanke. OWS's failure to connect is an epic fail if you take their stated goals at face value.
|
|
| | | 50 | Boldwin
ID: 1111427
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 21:14
|
"He was even under consideration to be the next Treasury Secretary." - CNBC
|
|
| | | 51 | biliruben
ID: 59551120
Fri, Dec 02, 2011, 23:15
|
You want to know why Boeing caved? It's because their out-sourcing labor on the cheap was costing them lots of money. They realized they actually need skilled labor, and 30, 40 bucks an hour turned out to be cheap in the grand scheme of things.
The 787 has been one big fiasco because Boeing's management thought they'd get cute and try and save some pennies on cheap labor. When they started losing pounds due to catastrophic delays due to the incompetence displayed by the semi-skilled laborers they hired, they realized their mistake, and came crawling back to the folks who actually know how to build planes.
|
|
| | | 52 | Boldwin
ID: 1111427
Sat, Dec 03, 2011, 00:22
|
And here I thot catastrophic delays were called strikes.
|
|
| | | 53 | sarge33rd
ID: 17117210
Sat, Dec 03, 2011, 00:47
|
If an employer requires workers with a narrow and specific skill set;
and that employer refuses to pay those workers what the market would demand (ie what the workers want. Afterall, an employee sells/leases his/her skills to the highest bidder, yes? Capitalism at work?),
but instead said employer tries unskilled cut-rate labor and finds that
projects dont get done,
or take too long
and/or have to be done over again.......
what B, would you call that employer, if they continue to refuse to pay the skilled market what that market demands?
|
|
| | | 54 | Boldwin
ID: 28111535
Sat, Dec 03, 2011, 06:39
|
How is any transaction which requires goons and extortion a free market transaction?
|
|
| | | 55 | Building 7
Leader
ID: 171572711
Sat, Dec 03, 2011, 07:28
|
There is no evidence that Corzine was seriously considered by Obama, let alone on his short list.
Nice example of a strawman argument, however.
Corzine on short list to replace Geithner 8/5/2011
Warning: Dubious website
|
|
| | | 56 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915
Sat, Dec 03, 2011, 09:22
|
If you read the original Star Ledger article, there is no evidence that he was actually considered by Obama--it was just a bit of unsourced rumors saying that Corzine would be good in the job.
Again: There is no evidence that Corzine was seriously considered by Obama. Only some talking heads doing what they do: Spin rumors out of nothing.
|
|
|
|