Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
2,500,000 members. Thank you!
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 05-09-2012, 10:37 AM
 
9 posts, read 11,673 times
Reputation: 13

Advertisements

That's what Clinton did and imo it worked pretty damn well. My right wing buddies say they want spending cuts and no tax increases, and my left wing buddies want tax increases and no spending cuts. Doesn't it make sense that if there is a large deficit to both increase taxes minimally (back to Clinton era rates) and cut spending aggressively?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-09-2012, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,780 posts, read 26,244,777 times
Reputation: 25636
If we rolled our tax rates back to the Clinton era, it would put a lot of strain on the poor and lower middle class. The bottom most tax rates go up by 50%, deductions and credits for children go down and the marriage penalty returns. Plus of course we repeal the payroll tax cuts, which hit the lower incomes the hardest.

I would agree with some of this, IF we were willing to make actual spending cuts, not cuts in the rate of increase or cuts from some wish list. If we were to look at actual year to year federal spending and increase revenue by say $.50 for every $1.00 cut in spending, yes, I could agree with an increase. Until we get spending under some degree of control, no.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, Va
5,404 posts, read 15,919,845 times
Reputation: 8093
I think reforming our tax code and making MAJOR spending cuts....do we really need the "rural electrifcation bureau" anymore....The folks we elect need to be mindful of the money they're spending....it doesn't belong them!

We can reduce tax rates, and still take in more tax money IF the economy is strong and growing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 02:02 PM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,982 posts, read 13,689,082 times
Reputation: 5689
People have turned into partisan zombies, that's why....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,343,940 times
Reputation: 24780
Hate radio has caught on a lot since 1992. It's taken the place of thinking among the devoted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 02:08 PM
 
1,635 posts, read 1,585,659 times
Reputation: 707
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyBats View Post
That's what Clinton did and imo it worked pretty damn well. My right wing buddies say they want spending cuts and no tax increases, and my left wing buddies want tax increases and no spending cuts. Doesn't it make sense that if there is a large deficit to both increase taxes minimally (back to Clinton era rates) and cut spending aggressively?
Well,Bush 1 tried it. We got the tax increase,but not a real cut in spending. Believe it or not,most Republicans used to oppose tax cuts,as they were more concerned with the deficit than with growth. They opposed JFK's tax cut. Not until Jack Kemp came along did Republicans finally start trying to grow the economy and get away from "green eye shade"dour Republicanism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Vermont
11,750 posts, read 14,548,924 times
Reputation: 18486
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyBats View Post
That's what Clinton did and imo it worked pretty damn well. My right wing buddies say they want spending cuts and no tax increases, and my left wing buddies want tax increases and no spending cuts.
I seriously doubt your claim. I don't know any liberals, either personally or in the public eye, who take the position that there should be no spending cuts as part of a deficit reduction plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 02:21 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,782,277 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyBats View Post
That's what Clinton did and imo it worked pretty damn well. My right wing buddies say they want spending cuts and no tax increases, and my left wing buddies want tax increases and no spending cuts. Doesn't it make sense that if there is a large deficit to both increase taxes minimally (back to Clinton era rates) and cut spending aggressively?
No, thats not what Clinton did. Clinton raised taxes which was harmful to the economy. It wasnt until Clinton cut captial gains rains from 28% to 20%, and cut taxes on 90% of small businesses did things turn out pretty dam well.

Furthermore, Clintons cut in spending, wasnt real cuts either. They simply cut the rate of growth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 02:31 PM
 
58,308 posts, read 26,671,815 times
Reputation: 14055
Many of us believe that way too much of our tax dollars are wasted.

The fed has gotten its mitts into way too many things they should NOT be involved in.

Why should we want to give a gov't more money to waste?

When they can prove the money they do get is NOT being wasted then we might consider raising taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2012, 02:39 PM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,583,969 times
Reputation: 14732
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyBats View Post
That's what Clinton did and imo it worked pretty damn well. My right wing buddies say they want spending cuts and no tax increases, and my left wing buddies want tax increases and no spending cuts. Doesn't it make sense that if there is a large deficit to both increase taxes minimally (back to Clinton era rates) and cut spending aggressively?
It would be very painful in the short term, because you'd cause deflation by reducing the money in circulation. You'd see more firing, less hiring, while we slooooooooooowly work off the public and private debt we've created. It's sort of like starving ourselves on purpose.

In the long run it might be good, but that's exactly why it isn't happening. Politicians are elected on short-term performance not long-term performance.
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

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