News Article: Another Example of Why Soaking the Rich Ends Up Soaking Everyone - Page 3

Bama Reb · May 28th, 2009, 06:39 AM

	Quote:	Bamabuzzard
	Right, I think we're about to blow past the point where the tax rate generates maximum revenue. They're talking about taxing every aspect of people's lives from sodas, tobacco, alcohol and health insurance. I'm just waiting on them to install a coin machine on all toilets in everyone's home and charge me a quarter every time I go take a dump. Scary thing is you've got some here that think that's a great idea.

It's worse than you think. You only get 5 squares of TP!!

Bamaro · May 28th, 2009, 07:44 AM

	Quote:	Jon
	Tax cuts = increased revenue to the Government. Kennedy, Reagan and Bush's tax cuts all grew revenues to Government. But the Democrats don't care because it is not about increasing revenue it's "soaking the rich" to be more "fair" it plays better to their base.

No, its about trying to pay for all their programs that everybody complains about but everybody wants.

Jon · May 28th, 2009, 08:15 AM

	Quote:	Bamaro
	No, its about trying to pay for all their programs that everybody complains about but everybody wants.

you define "everybody" different than I do. I certainly don't want them. For that matter I didn't want most of Bush's either. In fact most people I know don't want any of these programs so I am not sure where your "everybody" comes from. Other people may *think* they want them but they are being lied to about the cost both in real dollars and the cost to this country in the long run.

Make no mistake for Obama and crew it's all about buying votes with others money (mine and yours) the easiest way for the Dem's to appear to care is by exploiting wealth envy by soaking us evil rich people. If they wanted to actually pay for all this crap they know (and Obama has admitted but I can not find the article) that reducing taxes raises tax revenues but like I said it's not about the revenue it's about punishing the Achievers.

Accepting your premise that it's about paying for anything negates the fact that these policies result in lower tax revenues how do you reconcile one with the other?
J

Bamabuzzard · May 28th, 2009, 08:29 AM

	Quote:	Bamaro
	No, its about trying to pay for all their programs that everybody complains about but everybody wants.

Granted my "circle" isn't big but I do not know of anybody I come in contact with on a regular basis that wants most of these social programs that do nothing more than waste money. They've long proved that the return isn't worth the investment.

Bama4Ever831 · May 28th, 2009, 08:38 AM

	Quote:
	But the biggest fairy tale about Reagan is the most central one: about taxes and spending. It is one thing to sit in a North Vietnamese prison in the early 1970s, dreaming of a California governor who one day will balance the federal budget. It is another to imagine that it actually happened. When Reagan took office in 1981, federal receipts (taxes) were $517 billion and outlays (spending) were $591 billion, for a deficit of $73 billion. When he left office in 1989, taxes were $991 billion and spending was $1.14 trillion, for a deficit of $153 billion.* As a share of the economy (the fairest measure), Reagan did cut taxes, from 19.6 percent to 18.4 percent, and he cut spending from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent, increasing the deficit from 2.6 percent to 2.8 percent. The deficit went as high as an incredible 5 percent of GDP during Reagan's term. As a result, the national debt soared by almost two-thirds. You can fiddle with these numbers—assuming that it takes another year or two for a president's policies to take effect, or taking defense costs out of your calculation, and the basic result is the same or worse. Whatever, these numbers hardly constitute a "revolution."

How Republicans misremember Reagan. - By Michael Kinsley - Slate Magazine

Mamacalled · May 28th, 2009, 09:13 AM

	Quote:	Bama4Ever831
	How Republicans misremember Reagan. - By Michael Kinsley - Slate Magazine

If I use an article written by Rush Limbaugh to make a point against Obama would you buy it? Why would I take an article written by a left wing hack to critique Reagan?

Bamaro · May 28th, 2009, 09:51 AM

	Quote:	Mamacalled
	If I use an article written by Rush Limbaugh to make a point against Obama would you buy it?

Nobody in their right mind would buy anything from Boss Limbaugh.

It's On A Slab · May 28th, 2009, 09:59 AM

	Quote:	Mamacalled
	If I use an article written by Rush Limbaugh to make a point against Obama would you buy it? Why would I take an article written by a left wing hack to critique Reagan?

What difference does it make who lays the facts out?

The fact is that Reagan was not the small-govt. proponent he said he was, and left a huge deficit when he left office.

You can call Kinsley all the names you want, but you can't call him "Wrong" on this.

Bamabuzzard · May 28th, 2009, 10:46 AM

	Quote:	It's On A Slab
	What difference does it make who lays the facts out? The fact is that Reagan was not the small-govt. proponent he said he was, and left a huge deficit when he left office. You can call Kinsley all the names you want, but you can't call him "Wrong" on this.

And using this same line of thinking (which I think you're dead on right by the way) no "party" can sit here and point a finger at the other one. Our government and "representatives" of the American taxpayer have long put by the way side the best interest of the people and the country no matter WHICH PARTY is running it. We've wasted more money on absolutely asinine programs that do nothing more than layer their own pockets but use the platform "its to help the unfortunate" or some other lame excuse that we've continued to fall for. We also sit here and bicker like little cry babies amongst ourselves when truth be known neither party that we're "defending" gives two craps about us. And if anyone on this board believes they do I've got some igloos in Arizona I'll sell you at a "great price".

RamJamHam · May 28th, 2009, 04:59 PM

Unless I am sadly mistaken, the US Constitution requires that all spending bills start in the House of Representatives, then go to the Senate, then go to conference, then go to the President to sign. Only in the most tangential of ways can you say that President Reagan (or any president for that matter) ran up deficits or spent money. The fact that the President goes through the exercise of submitting a budget proposal has always been a bit curious to me given the facts stated above.

You can, however, blame Congress, which approves all budgets, and until quite recently (1994 -after the last time the Republican Party was pronounced dead) was controlled by the Democratic Party. So I know who I blame for the excesses. The reason the Republicans are in trouble at the moment is that they flat-out lied to the American people when they styled themselves as fiscal conservatives and then lost all semblance of self-control.

Bama4Ever831 · May 28th, 2009, 06:05 PM

If Reagan, or any strongly conservative president really, was really interested in being financially disciplined, why not simply veto or just simply not sign the bills. In order to override that veto, would Congress not need 2/3 majority in both the Senate and the House? Point is, Reagan was not some grand libertarian that everyone claims he is. If he really wanted to have a tiny government with almost no spending, he could veto those bills increasing spending. Good lord, Reagan almost DOUBLED federal spending. Quite a strong conservative, huh?

Question for the smarter members of the board:

What was the last US president to NOT increase federal spending?

My guess
Herbert Hoover

If not, Hoover I go all the way back to Andrew Jackson. I know he didn't believe in debt at all.

Another point is that BOTH parties spend recklessly and have for some time now. The only difference is that one party calls themselves conservative.

Mamacalled · May 28th, 2009, 07:31 PM

	Quote:	It's On A Slab
	What difference does it make who lays the facts out? The fact is that Reagan was not the small-govt. proponent he said he was, and left a huge deficit when he left office. You can call Kinsley all the names you want, but you can't call him "Wrong" on this.

Thank you making my point for me. The hypocrisy from the left is alive and well. You can have a right wing writer make a poin that is all fact and the left will not even consider it. Talk a left wing hack and whether or not it is true you better take him serious.

Mamacalled · May 28th, 2009, 07:34 PM

	Quote:	Bama4Ever831
	If Reagan, or any strongly conservative president really, was really interested in being financially disciplined, why not simply veto or just simply not sign the bills. In order to override that veto, would Congress not need 2/3 majority in both the Senate and the House? Point is, Reagan was not some grand libertarian that everyone claims he is. If he really wanted to have a tiny government with almost no spending, he could veto those bills increasing spending. Good lord, Reagan almost DOUBLED federal spending. Quite a strong conservative, huh? Question for the smarter members of the board: What was the last US president to NOT increase federal spending? My guess Herbert Hoover If not, Hoover I go all the way back to Andrew Jackson. I know he didn't believe in debt at all. Another point is that BOTH parties spend recklessly and have for some time now. The only difference is that one party calls themselves conservative.

I think that most of the conservatives on this board have been ridiculing the Repubs for this. It only seems that the Dems want to blame the Repubs for spending and then they go out and triple the debt in 100 days.