Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: when Reagan raised taxes

  1. #1

    when Reagan raised taxes

    spending cuts alone cannot close the deficit... or even come close.

    [quote]
    [url]http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/09/zelizer.reagan.taxes/[/url]

    While many commentators have focused on President George H.W. Bush and his infamous decision to raise taxes in 1990, an equally important, though often neglected, example is [b]President Ronald Reagan, who agreed to raise taxes in 1982, 1983, and 1986. If Republicans want to seriously tackle deficit reduction, they will have to remember Reagan's full legacy -- not simply his decision to cut income taxes in 1981.[/b]

    During Reagan's his first year as president, he demonstrated his commitment to conservative principles by pushing through Congress a historic tax reduction in 1981 that brought rates to their lowest level since World War II. Although Democrats initially opposed the tax cuts as an irresponsible act that would provide huge benefits to the wealthiest Americans, the administration won over Democratic support in the House by allowing them to attach all sorts of provisions like increasing the child care credit.

    But soon after, a more pragmatic side of the president was revealed. When Reagan dramatically increased the size of the defense budget and failed to curb domestic spending, the size of the federal deficit started to skyrocket. Some Senate Republicans, including Majority Leader Robert Dole, started to apply pressure on the White House to raise taxes. House Democrats insisted that they would not cut spending unless Reagan dealt with the tax side of the fiscal ledger.

    The president, who was unhappy about raising taxes and who realized that it would cause anger on the right, agreed to support Dole. This wasn't a surprise for anyone who knew Reagan's record. [b]As governor of California, Reagan had agreed to the largest tax increase in the state's history to deal with the $200 million deficit.[/b]

    In private meetings with legislators in 1982, Reagan argued that tax increases were needed to lower the deficit and win over enough Democratic support in the House to pass spending cuts. The president, according to Sen. Howard Baker, proclaimed "without any equivocation his total support" for the tax bill. During a tense meeting with members of the House, New York Rep. Jack Kemp, who had joined a group of conservatives fighting against the tax bill, bluntly told the president the bill was a poor idea.

    Reagan responded that if the congressman desired more domestic spending cuts, he would have to support the tax increase in order to get sufficient Democratic votes. When Kemp warned Reagan that he should not be a "leader of a minority within a minority," (Kemp argued that even most Democrats were not calling for tax increase) the congressman was "taken to the woodshed" by the president according to one unidentified staffer in attendance, the Los Angeles Times reported.

    In August, Reagan signed the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which increased taxes on business and added new excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol and other goods. Reagan made the same kind of choice the next year. In 1983, as part of an agreement to shore up the short-term fiscal stability of Social Security, Reagan did it again when he agreed to legislation that increased payroll taxes.

    During his second term, Treasury and Congress tackled the thorny issue of tax reform. Proponents argued that tax reform was necessary to make the system more economically efficient and fair. The Tax Reform of 1986 simplified the rate structure and closed many loopholes. It remained revenue neutral by lowering rates in exchange for the loopholes that were eliminated. But as a result of the bill, many interests were hit with higher taxes. Reagan stood behind the measure and was instrumental to its passage.

    In the end, Reagan survived these decisions politically. Although many conservatives complained at the time, Reagan won bipartisan support. He displayed a type of political flexibility and pragmatism that allowed him to build a domestic record in a Washington where power was divided between the two parties and where not all Republicans agreed that unlimited tax cuts were a good thing for the nation.

    Many of today's Republicans are proving to be much more ideologically rigid than their icon Ronald Reagan. Norquist is castigating and isolating a staunch conservative for saying what is rather obvious -- deficit reduction can't actually happen without raising taxes given that there are political and practical limitations to how much of government can be eliminated. Most of the major plans to come from the GOP have simply ignored this reality. Or others, like Paul Ryan, have obfuscated the fact that their plans would require tax increases on the middle class through tax reform.

    [b]We'll learn whether Republicans are serious about deficit reduction when they are faced with deciding on tax increases. The ultimate response of the GOP to the debate over Coburn's comments will reveal whether fiscal conservatism is really integral to the party or whether it is primarily rhetoric used to justify large reductions in the welfare state.[/b]

    [/quote]

  2. #2
    More Hypocricy.

    Democratic Party starting Point on Spending Cuts = $0.00 (or more accurately, the desire to INCREASE spending at a lower % rate of increase than last year, cause the sheep are too stupid to understand thats not actually cutting anything).

    Right, but we HAVE to raise taxes (on the 50% who actually pay them) or else the other team "isn't serious".

    **** this palce is pathetic. Hypocritical all-or-nothing's reposting carefully crafted party talking points and propaganda at each other over and over and over again, with not a single critical thought in the whole ****ing shebang.

    Seriously, half of you should just post a single image every time you post. The image of whichever party you're a shill for, would save everyone alot of wasted reading effort.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,409
    We spend so much............ we cow tow down to those who contribute NOTHING to the coffers of this country.

    Rob Peter to pay Paul and Paul will want MORE from Peter as Peter spends like a drunk sailor because he has no skin in the game.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4024590]
    Seriously, half of you should just post a single image every time you post. The image of whichever party you're a shill for, would save everyone alot of wasted reading effort.[/QUOTE]

    what would you post warfish? something like this?

    [IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CG84bT0i6FU/SV5a1pImKeI/AAAAAAAAAGk/tII_T4-Xj0g/s400/Statler+Waldorf.jpg[/IMG]

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,805
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4024606]Rob Peter to pay Paul and Paul will want MORE from Peter as Peter spends like a drunk sailor because he has no skin in the game.[/QUOTE]

    "Damn poor a**holes" Luke 24:11

  6. #6
    isn't the answer out of our problem that we have to do both.

    We have to raise taxes and end tax breaks for the top earners and we have to curb spending?


    If we focus on fixing waste, eliminating useless spending, eliminating about half or more of our foreign aid, cut military spending and make everyone pay the same tax rate, shouldn't we be able to fix all of this?

    Oh but we can't make everyone pay the same tax rate..'cuz that's communist. We can't cut military spending, 'cuz that makes us weak, we can't cut waste and redundancies in spending, because those politicians need to get re-elected."

    So, what can we rail about? Welfare and poor people. Those are the only real culprits!

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,409
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4024669]"Damn poor by choice mainly, "[B]generally lazy"[/B] a**holes" who must represent 50 percent of the country now?[/QUOTE]

    fixed........

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4024590]More Hypocricy.

    Democratic Party starting Point on Spending Cuts = $0.00 (or more accurately, the desire to INCREASE spending at a lower % rate of increase than last year, cause the sheep are too stupid to understand thats not actually cutting anything).

    Right, but we HAVE to raise taxes (on the 50% who actually pay them) or else the other team "isn't serious".

    **** this palce is pathetic. Hypocritical all-or-nothing's reposting carefully crafted party talking points and propaganda at each other over and over and over again, with not a single critical thought in the whole ****ing shebang.

    Seriously, half of you should just post a single image every time you post. The image of whichever party you're a shill for, would save everyone alot of wasted reading effort.[/QUOTE]

    Any thoughts on the topic or are you just going to continually insult all the peoplez who aren't as enlightened as thou?

  9. #9
    I am a conservative and think taxes should be increased - on everyone.
    Restore the Clinton era tax rates. Everyone thinks that those times and Clinton were wonderful. Let's revisit then.
    There were always some who didn't pay taxes - the ultra poor not super rich. And certainly not General Electric.
    Increase the payroll tax (SS & Medicare). Raise the reirement age to 70 (effective in say 2021) and eliminate early retirement entirely.
    Medicare is rife with fraud. It's about time fraud was attacked.
    Reduce the size of the U.S government by 5+% and freeze all wages for 5+years.

  10. #10
    [QUOTE=piney;4024725]

    If we focus on fixing waste, eliminating useless spending, eliminating about half or more of our foreign aid, cut military spending and make everyone pay the same tax rate, shouldn't we be able to fix all of this?

    [/QUOTE]
    The problem is NO ONE has the balls to do this.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,805
    [QUOTE=STL Jet fan;4025718]The problem is NO ONE has the balls to do this.[/QUOTE]

    I figured out a way to save 3 billion.

    Stop sending 3 billion a year to a country that knowingly sheltered Osama for 6+ years.




    Hey!!! Look at that!! Sheer genius!!! :rolleyes:

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4025730]I figured out a way to save 3 billion.

    Stop sending 3 billion a year to a country that knowingly sheltered Osama for 6+ years.




    Hey!!! Look at that!! Sheer genius!!! :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    exactly

  13. #13
    Reagan agreed to a tax hike if the democrats agreed to spending cuts needless to say the democrats failed to keep their side of the bargain. Go figure!

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,805
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;4026677]Reagan agreed to a tax hike if the democrats agreed to spending cuts needless to say the democrats failed to keep their side of the bargain. Go figure![/QUOTE]

    LMAO!!!

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4026685]LMAO!!![/QUOTE]

    Right check it out. The Democrats were in power back then! Remember that?

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,805
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;4026770]Right check it out. The Democrats were in power back then! Remember that?[/QUOTE]

    lol....no. I was 4 years old.

    But I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express and have read the book "The Triumph of Politics".

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=FF2;4025305]Any thoughts on the topic or are you just going to continually insult all the peoplez who aren't as enlightened as thou?[/QUOTE]

    Yes.

    Cut spending by endling or throttling back on social wlefare entitlement programs and spending programs that are not vital, but optional, i.e. benefits to special interst groups, farmers, corporations, unions, and social welfare for those who are not actually poor. Cut spending by ending the massive inefficientcy, duplication and burocracy of hwo the Federal Government operates. Cut spending by ending the idea of Socialized Medicine. Cut spending by reurning us to the ideals of personal responsabillity, or face the consequences of your own decisions/actions. Cut spending by ending bailiouts. Cut spending by fixing the tax code, ending the massive holes and subsidies to favored special interets, and moving to a fair flat/fair tax system, at a rate appropriate for the reduced Federal Spending I'm discussing here. End the system where only half odf Americans pay any net income taxes. Al Americans should pay something, with the exception of those below the poverty line (a rest poverty line that denotes actual poverty, not political convenience poverty). Cut spending by ending all three foreign wars, and withdrawing from places like Germany and South Korea. Cut spending by doing a wholesale review of millitary porjects and spending, and cutting drasticly all those that do not serve our current and future interests. Cut spending by passing a Constituional amendment mandating a balanced budget except in times of War, specificly War with another Nationstate that threatens not our vague interests, but our actual Nation and Population. Cut spending by passing Federal Law barring all states from having so-called "sanctuary cities" for illegals, enforce our immigration laws, and cut drasticly back on unemployment benefits duration, making americans who are unemployed work those jobs they supposedly "don't want to work" if they want money. Add funding to domestic reinvestment of infrastructure, roads, rails, airports, immigration enforcement, and REAL defense, not Foreign projectionism. And add a new source of revenue by legalizing pot with appropriate regulation/taxation/oversight/limitation.

    Since you ask, what are your thoughts on the topic, or is "didn;t you leave" all you got trolly?;)
    Last edited by Warfish; 05-12-2011 at 11:04 AM.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4026814]Yes.

    Cut spending by endling or throttling back on social wlefare entitlement programs and spending programs that are not vital, but optional, i.e. benefits to special interst groups, farmers, corporations, unions, and social welfare for those who are not actually poor. Cut spending by ending the massive inefficientcy, duplication and burocracy of hwo the Federal Government operates. Cut spending by ending the idea of Socialized Medicine. Cut spending by reurning us to the ideals of personal responsabillity, or face the consequences of your own decisions/actions. Cut spending by ending bailiouts. Cut spending by fixing the tax code, ending the massive holes and subsidies to favored special interets, and moving to a fair flat/fair tax system, at a rate appropriate for the reduced Federal Spending I'm discussing here. End the system where only half odf Americans pay any net income taxes. Al Americans should pay something, with the exception of those below the poverty line (a rest poverty line that denotes actual poverty, not political convenience poverty). Cut spending by ending all three foreign wars, and withdrawing from places like Germany and South Korea. Cut spending by doing a wholesale review of millitary porjects and spending, and cutting drasticly all those that do not serve our current and future interests. Cut spending by passing a Constituional amendment mandating a balanced budget except in times of War, specificly War with another Nationstate that threatens not our vague interests, but our actual Nation and Population. Cut spending by passing Federal Law barring all states from having so-called "sanctuary cities" for illegals, enforce our immigration laws, and cut drasticly back on unemployment benefits duration, making americans who are unemployed work those jobs they supposedly "don't want to work" if they want money. Add funding to domestic reinvestment of infrastructure, roads, rails, airports, immigration enforcement, and REAL defense, not Foreign projectionism. And add a new source of revenue by legalizing pot with appropriate regulation/taxation/oversight/limitation.

    Since you ask, what are your thoughts on the topic, or is "didn;t you leave" all you got trolly?;)[/QUOTE]

    +100000000000000 Awesome post

  19. #19
    We should not cut the budget or raise taxes. We should have a commission that comes up with a budget from scratch at this point that takes into consideration what we need. At that point we can come up with the revenue needed and simplified tax code that funds our goverment spending based on what we can agree are legitimate spending functions.

    We have so many departments and funded pieces that over years they become entrenched into the budget. We should re-evaluate what are real needs are. Underfunding programs and departments that shouldn't be funded is no way to get a budget. We should agree on what we need and how much funding we need to achieve it.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 05-12-2011 at 12:22 PM.

  20. #20
    Obama got a budget from his own commission and has refused to go along with it. Face he is a gutless coward! Tax Spend and then Spend some more. It is the Democrats Constitution!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us