Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-18-2012, 05:08 PM
 
Location: North America
5,960 posts, read 5,525,384 times
Reputation: 1951

Advertisements

With this compromise we can please conservatives (cutting bureaucratic fat) and progressives (soak the rich).

But, best of all, we can eliminate the national debt and deficit with one logical solution...this one.

Raise Taxes To Cut Government? - Rasmussen Reports™

Quote:
"Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance," Reagan said in his 1980 campaign. "Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

No one turned the starving-beast theory into baloney faster than Reagan, who followed his tax cuts with a spending binge fueled by massive borrowing. What he did, in effect, was cut the extravagant kid's allowance and then hand him 10 credit cards.

The national debt doubled under Reagan. It doubled again under George W. Bush, who followed the same reckless path. (At least Reagan subsequently raised taxes in the face of soaring deficits.)

Frustrated fiscal conservatives -- a group that includes Democrats, Republicans and, above all, independents -- are assessing another tool for imposing budgetary discipline: the "Fiscal Illusion" effect. Totally contrary to starve-the-beast, it promotes raising taxes as the better way to contain government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2012, 05:23 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,582 posts, read 9,743,586 times
Reputation: 4172
All this "compromise" will do, is spark the creation of hundreds of new "Agencies" for preservations of lint from indigent laundry or etc.. They will do nothing, but one will be eliminated for each increase in taxes... and they will have served their purpose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2012, 05:30 PM
 
23,838 posts, read 23,037,244 times
Reputation: 9407
The Reagan "spending binge" is a big distortion of what actually transpired. Reagan's tax cuts were a compromise with Democrats....tax cuts coupled with an agreement to cut spending. Something to the tune of $3 in cuts for every $1 taxes. Instead, we had tax cuts and mega-spending. Democrats never held up their end of the bargain. I don't have the time to look it up, but it's true.

I really dislike liberal distortions and revisionist history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2012, 05:37 PM
 
4,428 posts, read 4,467,586 times
Reputation: 1356
Cut the GSA for starters ....... and no compromise for higher taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2012, 06:05 PM
 
Location: North America
5,960 posts, read 5,525,384 times
Reputation: 1951
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
The Reagan "spending binge" is a big distortion of what actually transpired. Reagan's tax cuts were a compromise with Democrats....tax cuts coupled with an agreement to cut spending. Something to the tune of $3 in cuts for every $1 taxes. Instead, we had tax cuts and mega-spending. Democrats never held up their end of the bargain. I don't have the time to look it up, but it's true.

I really dislike liberal distortions and revisionist history.
No democrat would EVER admit to not holding up their end of ANY bargain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2012, 07:00 PM
 
29,981 posts, read 42,787,198 times
Reputation: 12828
Cut ten federal agencies for every 1/10th point the interest payments on our National Debt increase. Cut 100 federal agencies for every $1 Billion in debt ceiling raises.

Ron Paul 2012 because this man actually has a plan to cut $1 Trillion in real spending (not future spending) in his 1st year as POTUS.

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/...mericaPlan.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2012, 01:52 AM
 
3,045 posts, read 3,182,245 times
Reputation: 1307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooperkat View Post
Cut the GSA for starters ....... and no compromise for higher taxes.
...and who would manage the purchasing and government buildings that they manage now?

Therein lies the stupidity in eliminating a federal agency. They're there for a reason to start with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2012, 06:50 AM
 
Location: Massachusetts
10,029 posts, read 8,314,187 times
Reputation: 4211
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance View Post
...and who would manage the purchasing and government buildings that they manage now?

Therein lies the stupidity in eliminating a federal agency. They're there for a reason to start with.
I think you need to grow a set and look at this logically. You need to understand cause and effect to know why it's a good idea to close a Federal agency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2012, 06:58 AM
 
Location: North America
5,960 posts, read 5,525,384 times
Reputation: 1951
Quote:
Originally Posted by noexcuseforignorance View Post
...and who would manage the purchasing and government buildings that they manage now?

Therein lies the stupidity in eliminating a federal agency. They're there for a reason to start with.
Most federal agencies are completely useless and exist only to spawn public union employees to suck union dues from (which, in turn, are donated to the Democratic National Committee).

Funny how America went from zero to world power in the 19th century and early 20th century without the need for hundreds of "do nothing" federal bureaucracies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2012, 07:00 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,869 posts, read 24,295,801 times
Reputation: 8672
I'd simply settle for every tax increase, there is an equal decrease in spending. That doesn't mean we have to "end" an agency, or something like that, just cuts.

Its going to take significant cuts, and significant revenue increases.

This isn't complex geometry, is simple addition and subtraction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top