Bill Clinton and taxing the rich (Congress, millionaire, security, Reagan)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with him, but that is not at all an endorsement of the Buffett rule. Just because the millionaire should pay more than the bus driver doesn't mean he should pay a higher rate. And both Obama and Romney have advocated closing loopholes. But the Bush-era tax cuts are not loopholes. To the end them would be to raise taxes on millions of Americans.
The republicans are proposing eliminating loopholes (writeoffs mostly enacted by democrat congresses) and lowering rates for all Americans. Obama's own commision Simpson/Bowles also endorsed that idea. That is just what Reagan was talking about. But Reagan also wanted to reduce spending and make government smaller. The only ones opposed are Obama and the democrats. Their answer is to operate the government without a budget and hide from any blame.
The republicans are proposing eliminating loopholes (writeoffs mostly enacted by democrat congresses) and lowering rates for all Americans. Obama's own commision Simpson/Bowles also endorsed that idea. That is just what Reagan was talking about. But Reagan also wanted to reduce spending and make government smaller. The only ones opposed are Obama and the democrats. Their answer is to operate the government without a budget and hide from any blame.
Obama running the opposite direction from Simpson-Bowles as fast as he can is the single most irresponsible act of his blighted term in office. I was one of the 70% of Americans who approved of him on Inauguration Day, and one of the 50% who disapprove of his job performance today. It isn't racism; it is a desire to leave our children a country instead of a pile of bills for a failed welfare state.
I have no lack of enthusiasm for Anybody But Obama in 2012, and every candidate running against his enablers in both houses of Congress.
But Reagan also wanted to reduce spending and make government smaller.
Is that why spending increased and the government actually GREW under Reagan? Seriously.
Quote:
Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.
Quote:
Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.