• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama: No Deal Without Tax Hikes

Status
Not open for further replies.
liblady said:
show me the lies?
Click to expand...

Ronald Reagan dealt with a Democratic House his entire time in office, with a Senate going back and forth. As such, President Reagan was forced to negotiate with the Democrats. One such example was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. While President Reagan opposed raising taxes, the Democrats promised him that for every $1 in tax hikes, there would be $3 in spending cuts. Under these pretenses, President Reagan acquiesced to a tax hike. The Democrats did not keep up their end of the bargain – for every dollar in tax increases the Democrats only cut spending by 27 cents. After this mistake, President Reagan never again raised taxes.

Strictly Right » Blog Archive » No Eugene Robinson, Democrats are NOT the Party of Reagan
 
sangha said:
Why do so many rightwingers hate so many americans?
Click to expand...

We don't hate Americans. That is a stupid question. We pity liberals.
 
sangha said:
Why do so many rightwingers hate so many americans?
Click to expand...

why do far lefties pretend to be independents and ask silly questions? the only hate I constantly see is towards those who have done better than a bunch of dem posters
 
LesGovt said:
Ronald Reagan dealt with a Democratic House his entire time in office, with a Senate going back and forth. As such, President Reagan was forced to negotiate with the Democrats. One such example was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. While President Reagan opposed raising taxes, the Democrats promised him that for every $1 in tax hikes, there would be $3 in spending cuts. Under these pretenses, President Reagan acquiesced to a tax hike. The Democrats did not keep up their end of the bargain – for every dollar in tax increases the Democrats only cut spending by 27 cents. After this mistake, President Reagan never again raised taxes.



Strictly Right » Blog Archive » No Eugene Robinson, Democrats are NOT the Party of Reagan
Click to expand...

If some guy with a blog wrote it, it must be true!!!
 
FilmFestGuy said:
What's funny is saying that a mild tax increase will destroy an economy when there's ample proof that it won't.
Click to expand...

Even extremely mild tax increases will be detrimental to growth. You will reduce real economic activity, dollar for dollar, with any and all tax increases on income.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Even extremely mild tax increases will be detrimental to growth. You will reduce real economic activity, dollar for dollar, with any and all tax increases on income.
Click to expand...

Is this true? Couldn't they put the taxes into "shovel-ready" projects?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Even extremely mild tax increases will be detrimental to growth. You will reduce real economic activity, dollar for dollar, with any and all tax increases on income.
Click to expand...

CHART: Lower Taxes On The Rich Don’t Lead To Job Growth | ThinkProgress

jobsvtaxeschart0628.jpg
 
no one has yet to come close to proving high marginal tax rates are responsible for growth

we had high rates in the 50s when the USA was the only functioning industrial power after the war and we had huge growth as we supplied most of the world with machine tools etc
 
LesGovt said:
What's truly sad is to watch liberals believe that taking more money from people is a good thing.

What's truly sad is to think that increasing the minimum wage does not hurt anyone.

What is even more truly sad is that liberals think the Democrats have the correct economic and fiscal policy for the United States.

Pathetic! Truly pathetic.
Click to expand...

Take a look at this chart when sorted by % growth:

Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

8 of the Top 10 Presidents in terms of job growth were Democrats.

8 of the Bottom 10 are Republicans. If you take Obama out and don't count him until his term is finished, then you have 9 of the Bottom 10 being Republicans.

Who has better policies?
 
sangha said:
If some guy with a blog wrote it, it must be true!!!
Click to expand...

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush joined with House and Senate Democrats to craft a budget that raised taxes, breaking his “Read my lips; no new taxes” pledge. Democrats sold the president a plan that promised $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Not only did the spending cuts never materialize, outlays actually grew. Congressional Democrats instead spent $23 billion above the pre-budget-deal base line. Of course, the tax increases became manifest immediately - resulting in a $137 billion tax increase in exchange for the explosive spending.

Taxpayers didn’t respond kindly to this abuse. In the 1990 congressional midterms, Republicans lost eight seats, while Mr. Bush was shown the door after only one term. Lawmakers would be wise to heed the lessons learned the hard way by those who break tax pledges.

The first President Bush wasn’t the only Republican to buy into the fallacy of a bipartisan budget deal that promises spending cuts in exchange for tax increases. President Reagan signed into law the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, brokered with Democrats to cut spending and raise taxes. This “deal” promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.

That spending restraint was never realized, either. Instead, the resulting tax increase was the largest in peacetime history, making up almost 1 percent of GDP. This $37.5 billion tax increase did nothing to shore up the spending deficit - in fact, the deficit jumped from 4 percent of GDP in 1982 to 6 percent in 1983 and did not dip back below 4 percent until after the tax reform enacted in 1986, when it dropped 1.8 percentage points to 3.2 percent in 1987.

CORRAO: It's the spending, stupid - Washington Times

And now for you listening and viewing enjoyment:

 
Welfare-queen states - The Washington Post

Happily, the Tax Foundation — a conservative Washington-based think tank — has, however unintentionally, provided the answer. In 2007, the foundation published a survey of 2005 federal spending in each state and compared that with each state’s contribution in federal taxes. In other words, the foundation identified the states that sponge off the federal government and those that subsidize it. The welfare-queen states and the responsible, producing states, as it were.

The list, alas, hasn’t been updated — in part, no doubt, because conservatives didn’t like what it revealed: that those states that got more back from our government than they paid in were overwhelmingly Republican. The 10 biggest net recipients of taxpayers’ largess were, in order, New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Kentucky and Virginia. The 10 states that paid in the most and got back the least were New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York and Colorado.
Click to expand...

You can see the wholse chart at:

The Tax Foundation - Federal Spending Received Per Dollar of Taxes Paid by State, 2005
 
sangha said:
The Moonie Times?!! Seriously?
Click to expand...

Seriously. I have yet to see you disprove the truth. Here's more:

Off to Blair House and a variety of undisclosed locations they went over a period of weeks to work their magic. When they were through, out came TEFRA, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, a legislative package sold to President Reagan as a grand compromise constituting a 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to tax increases.

This is the same ratio that Brooks, in the current context, calls "an astonishing concession" on the part of Democrats, the framework of a deal Republicans should accept without hesitation as the "mother of all no-brainers." That's essentially what the Gang of 17 told Reagan in 1982.

Reagan reluctantly agreed, signing the bill into law, saying he was supporting "a limited loophole-closing tax increase to raise more than $98.3 billion over three years in return for ... agreement to cut spending by $280 billion during the same period."

While the tax provisions (including excise tax increases and various business tax adjustments) were promptly put in place, Reagan wrote years later that "the Democrats reneged on their pledge (to cut spending) and we never got those cuts."

Indeed, spending by Congress increased in subsequent weeks (!) (not to mention years), and there was no discernible progress in reducing the deficit.

Reagan's counselor and later attorney general, Edwin Meese III, who supported the TEFRA deal along with Reagan at the time, summed it up succinctly in hindsight in his 1992 book, "With Reagan: The Inside Story."

"I believe that the TEFRA compromise -- the 'Debacle of 1982' -- was the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration," Meese wrote. "It was a complete departure from our tax-cutting mandate, failed to reduce the growth of government spending, (and) did not decrease the deficit. ... Judged by the results, TEFRA was not only a mistake, it was an abject lesson in how not to reduce the deficit."

There they go again: Remembering the 'TEFRA Debacle of 1982' | The Examiner | Op Eds | Washington Examiner
 
LesGovt said:
Seriously. I have yet to see you disprove the truth. Here's more:

Off to Blair House and a variety of undisclosed locations they went over a period of weeks to work their magic. When they were through, out came TEFRA, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, a legislative package sold to President Reagan as a grand compromise constituting a 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to tax increases.

This is the same ratio that Brooks, in the current context, calls "an astonishing concession" on the part of Democrats, the framework of a deal Republicans should accept without hesitation as the "mother of all no-brainers." That's essentially what the Gang of 17 told Reagan in 1982.

Reagan reluctantly agreed, signing the bill into law, saying he was supporting "a limited loophole-closing tax increase to raise more than $98.3 billion over three years in return for ... agreement to cut spending by $280 billion during the same period."

While the tax provisions (including excise tax increases and various business tax adjustments) were promptly put in place, Reagan wrote years later that "the Democrats reneged on their pledge (to cut spending) and we never got those cuts."

Indeed, spending by Congress increased in subsequent weeks (!) (not to mention years), and there was no discernible progress in reducing the deficit.

Reagan's counselor and later attorney general, Edwin Meese III, who supported the TEFRA deal along with Reagan at the time, summed it up succinctly in hindsight in his 1992 book, "With Reagan: The Inside Story."

"I believe that the TEFRA compromise -- the 'Debacle of 1982' -- was the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration," Meese wrote. "It was a complete departure from our tax-cutting mandate, failed to reduce the growth of government spending, (and) did not decrease the deficit. ... Judged by the results, TEFRA was not only a mistake, it was an abject lesson in how not to reduce the deficit."

There they go again: Remembering the 'TEFRA Debacle of 1982' | The Examiner | Op Eds | Washington Examiner
Click to expand...

What you are proving is that spending cuts really NEVER happen. Even if this Congress passes them, it will rely on a future congress to enact them - and the future congresses almost never do.

Thus, the best way to fix a deficit is to increase taxes and FREEZE spending increases. There is actually a president in office willing to talk about cuts and freezes. If Republicans would stop slobbering all over Grover Norquist's nob, maybe something could actually get done.
 
sangha said:
The first graph shows job growth trending upwards under a Democratic House. The 2nd shows the job growth trend after the repubs took over the House.

What is the difference?
Click to expand...
You mean other than cherry-picking the data for the democrats which could just as easily shown 25 months of straight decline?

Or the fact that even when cherry picking the best data you could find, you still altered the scale on the GOP graph so the Feb/Mar/Apr bars wouldn't completely dwarf everything in the Democrat graph?

"What is the difference??" You may as well have asked to be slapped.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
What you are proving is that spending cuts really NEVER happen. Even if this Congress passes them, it will rely on a future congress to enact them - and the future congresses almost never do.

Thus, the best way to fix a deficit is to increase taxes and FREEZE spending increases. There is actually a president in office willing to talk about cuts and freezes. If Republicans would stop slobbering all over Grover Norquist's nob, maybe something could actually get done.
Click to expand...

Absolutely incorrect. Make them cut spending!! No tax increases. It's time to make Congress become an honest institution.
 
TurtleDude said:
tax increases do several things

1) they don't increase jobs

2) they fuel more reckless spending by the government

3) they convince many slackers that the government can continue reckless spending since there is "more revenue" and those slackers continue to demand more reckless spending

4) the dems can use it to fuel the class warfare and envy that gets many ne'er do wells to vote dem
Click to expand...

#1 is ABSOLUTELY false. If government hires people to build roads, schools, electric infrastructure (either directly or through contracts) it most definitely creates jobs.

If you cut government spending, you cut jobs and raise unemployment. If federal, state, and local governments hadn't had to shed so many jobs over the past year and half or so, the unemployment picture would look vastly different right now.

The only ne'er-do-wells suckling the government teat I see is now the leading contender for the GOP - between farm subsidies, her husbands Medicaid receipts to "pray away the gay", and her salary, Bachmann is pulling in about $541,000/year in taxpayer dollars.

She just doesn't want government spending on anybody but her.
 
LesGovt said:
Absolutely incorrect. Make them cut spending!! No tax increases. It's time to make Congress become an honest institution.
Click to expand...

Krugman’s reference to Reagan signing a 1982 tax hike — which scaled back specific tax cuts for businesses, not individuals — was not evidence of the president’s “pragmatism.” Reagan reluctantly went along with the legislation because Congressional Democrats pledged big reductions in domestic spending for every dollar in tax hikes. Of course, the tax increases went into effect immediately and the spending cuts never materialized. The tax hike did not ameliorate the deficit; rather, it exacerbated the recession. The lesson that Reagan learned from the 1982 tax increase was not that he should “pragmatically” turn his back on conservatives, but rather that liberal Democrats should not be trusted with pledges to cut government spending.

FrontPage Magazine - Rewriting Reagan

As I suggested in another thread, there should be a book entitled, "You Can Trust Tax and Spenders To Be Tax and Spenders.
 
LesGovt said:
Seriously. I have yet to see you disprove the truth. Here's more:

Off to Blair House and a variety of undisclosed locations they went over a period of weeks to work their magic. When they were through, out came TEFRA, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, a legislative package sold to President Reagan as a grand compromise constituting a 3-to-1 rate of spending cuts to tax increases.

This is the same ratio that Brooks, in the current context, calls "an astonishing concession" on the part of Democrats, the framework of a deal Republicans should accept without hesitation as the "mother of all no-brainers." That's essentially what the Gang of 17 told Reagan in 1982.

Reagan reluctantly agreed, signing the bill into law, saying he was supporting "a limited loophole-closing tax increase to raise more than $98.3 billion over three years in return for ... agreement to cut spending by $280 billion during the same period."

While the tax provisions (including excise tax increases and various business tax adjustments) were promptly put in place, Reagan wrote years later that "the Democrats reneged on their pledge (to cut spending) and we never got those cuts."

Indeed, spending by Congress increased in subsequent weeks (!) (not to mention years), and there was no discernible progress in reducing the deficit.

Reagan's counselor and later attorney general, Edwin Meese III, who supported the TEFRA deal along with Reagan at the time, summed it up succinctly in hindsight in his 1992 book, "With Reagan: The Inside Story."

"I believe that the TEFRA compromise -- the 'Debacle of 1982' -- was the greatest domestic error of the Reagan administration," Meese wrote. "It was a complete departure from our tax-cutting mandate, failed to reduce the growth of government spending, (and) did not decrease the deficit. ... Judged by the results, TEFRA was not only a mistake, it was an abject lesson in how not to reduce the deficit."

There they go again: Remembering the 'TEFRA Debacle of 1982' | The Examiner | Op Eds | Washington Examiner
Click to expand...

You think I'm going to argue against the idea that reagan was a dope who got snookered? :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom