Why is it, that the solution for Liberals is always to raise or create taxes? It is the first thought that comes to mind for them, no matter what. The only question for them is how to tax something (Cap and Trade or Carbon Tax). Then there is the VAT, which taxes through each phase of a product being made and creates a new bureaucracy to keep track of all of the taxes along the way. I am just naming a few examples. All of these taxes go to a government which is so bloated and inefficient, they cannot do anything (with the military being the only exception) right. Let people keep their money and make their own decisions, really we do not need the government to help us. Taxes are a default for Liberals.
The true question that needs to be ask: Is there anything you would not tax?
4 comments:
Mark -
Take a look at the Federal Budget. Sincerely - most people who make your argument are not familiar with the budget. You can find it online or simply buy the World Almanac and Book of Facts.
Obama inherited a deficit so large that spending cuts alone will not balance the budget, much less pay down debt. Never mind the escalating obligations to Social Security and Medicare. If we simply eliminated all Defense spending, we would still have a deficit. If we could blow off our interest payments and we'd still have a deficit. We could literally shut down Social Security and... you get the idea.
A better question is how people can look at Clinton's 1993 Budget Bill that raised taxes, subsequently balanced the budget and complain about taxes. Bush & GOP Congress came in and pissed it away in no time - literally reducing relative receipts by 20%! Remember - BUSH WOULD HAVE HAD SURPLUSES IF HE SIMPLY MAINTAINED THE REVENUES PROVIDED BY CLINTON'S TAX STRUCTURE (20.6%/GDP). But no, Bush and GOP Congress couldn't do that. They had to cut taxes (with Jimmy and the Mark's applauding) and double the debt in eight years. Good job, guys!
When we have the lowest taxes in the western world and have over $10T of debt, isn't it obvious where opportunities lay in balancing our accounts?
I will again recommend Bruce Bartlett's book, The New American Economy. This is written by one of the father's of Reagan tax cuts, a former high official with the CATO Institute and the Heritage Foundation. He will tell you why a VAT is on it's way and not a moment too soon.
Uh no! To think Clinton engineered a balanced budget is fools folly. Please. He happened to be president during the largest tech build-up the world had ever seen at that period of time. I don't know if you remember? Companies like Microsoft, Oracle and Intel (to name a very few) had huge profits and filled the Federal coffers. Once again it was the private sector and innovation not GOVERNMENT! Give credit where credit is due, not to the Animal House White House where Belushi would have felt at home.
Happy New Year!
Actually both Bush and Obama have much tougher Presidencies than Clinton. Way over rated,he was a free-rider?
Mark:
You are letting your partisanship get in the way of your thinking. You need to give credit where credit is due. Uber conservative supply-siders Lawrence Kudlow and Arthur Laffer both give Clinton credit for balancing the budget and creating surpluses. Let me remind you of a few facts:
1. 1993 budget bill raised taxes, controlled spending increases to inflation, and maintained Pay/Go policy that Bush 41/Democratic Congress put into place in 1991. Said Budget Bill was passed without one Republican vote. It served as the fiscal blueprint for the rest of Clinton's presidency.
2. The whole post-war era has been one of economic growth - the '90's were not unique. Reagan enjoyed the best demographics - the heart of the boomers were just beginning their big earning years.
3. Clinton's tax structure increased the PERCENTAGE of GDP captured by the IRS to 20.6%. Reagan was in the 17's. Bushes tax cuts brought it to the 16's. I have an Excel chart I'll be happy to provide that shows the respective presidencies spending and receipts as a percentage of GDP.
4. Clinton left office and Bush stepped in. The GOP Congress remained. Taxes were cut, Pay/Go was scrapped, the surplus evaporated and massive deficits returned (reminiscent of the Reagan era).
5. Clinton inherited a STRUCTURAL deficit, raised taxes on the top 2% and created a STRUCTURAL surplus. Bush inherited said surplus (you'd think he'd be better at inheriting things), significantly changed tax rates and delivered a STRUCTURAL DEFICIT to Obama. The PERCENTAGE of GDP dropped like a stone. You want to blame someone other than Bush & GOP Congress?
6. Animal House? Greg Stevens - GOP consultant best known for Swift Boat ads - used to share an office with Dubya during the reign of GWH Bush. He said that GWB - ever the frat boy - took great pride in the ability to fart on command. Often, when Stevens was expecting an important visitor, the future president would fart in the entry just as they were arriving and disappear, so that the visitor would be met with the foul odor. Hilarious, huh?
I am all for the PRIVATE SECTOR and INNOVATION. We would be lost without business and industry. I am also for the administration setting economic policy to run surpluses in times of growth and pay down debt. I support STRUCTURAL SURPLUSES. The Clinton Administration was successful in this regard. Not so GWB or Reagan. Facts is facts.
Why did GWB and GOP Congress have to change Clinton's tax structure? What were they thinking? Can a BBV be honest and admit failure or is revisionism the only way they can make their little world make sense?
Who was the last Republican president to balance his own budget? Dwight D Eisenhower - Keynesian - some 60 years ago. Pretty damning for the supply side bunch, don't you think?
Post a Comment