http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june10/makingsense_02-05.html

Pretty damning. Expect to see more of this as the chickens come home to roost.Many Rs now reocgnize that cutting taxes is a farce.

Considering that Reagan wasn't really very conservative, this isn't that much of a surprise.

We have gone from a budget surplus to a $1.5 Trillion deficit in 10 years. One party controlled the government more during this time, but both sides are to blame. The Bush tax cuts during a time of war were idiotic, but the Dems certainly haven't been helping matters lately either...

Whatever we were doing at the end of Clinton's second term when the budget surplus was happening, we need to do again. If it means higher taxes, so be it. If it means the Republicans regain congress and they work with a Dem president to make it happen, so be it.

Whatever it takes. And I don't really give a damn who gets the credit.

Cutting taxes is a farce? What utter nonsense. Heck, why not just tax everyone 100% if taxes are such a great thing for the economy?

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: Considering that Reagan wasn't really very conservative, this isn't that much of a surprise.

We have gone from a budget surplus to a $1.5 Trillion deficit in 10 years. One party controlled the government more during this time, but both sides are to blame. The Bush tax cuts during a time of war were idiotic, but the Dems certainly haven't been helping matters lately either...

Whatever we were doing at the end of Clinton's second term when the budget surplus was happening, we need to do again. If it means higher taxes, so be it. If it means the Republicans regain congress and they work with a Dem president to make it happen, so be it.

Whatever it takes. And I don't really give a damn who gets the credit.

I'd argue that excessive SPENDING is the problem, not cutting taxes. The government is too large. Its reach too extensive. Everything needs scaling back, and that includes taxes at some point.

Don't expect this group of Dems to ever agree with what I just wrote, however. They (including this president) WANT the government controlling more and being intrusive into just about every aspect of our lives.

If the government is in control, then the party in control of the government has the power.

No, it's spending with tax cuts.

We had large tax cuts while at the same time starting two wars. That doesn't work.

I Wear Pants wrote: No, it's spending with tax cuts.

We had large tax cuts while at the same time starting two wars. That doesn't work.

It always amazes me how quickly the lefties love to point out Repubs who think cutting taxes is a bad idea but these same lefties are slow to acknowledge blue dog Dems who think we need to cut spending.

Raising taxes in the midst of the "worst economy since the Great Depression" is not the answer. It'd be like pouring salt into a gaping wound. Since cutting taxes is allegedly a farce (and it is not) then we MUST cut government spending because it's just about the only thing we have left to try.

But Writerbuckeye is absolutely correct; the socialist pin-heads now in control of Washington want more control of us by controlling a larger share of the economic pie. By creating a larger dependency class (us) by growing entitlements such as government controlled health care (spending) they cement their hold on political power.

Regarding "starting two wars" I can agree with you on one of them. While the world is certainly better off without Saddam Hussein, I have largely disagreed with Bush's decision to go there. Meanwhile I remind you that al Qaeda started the war in Afghanistan.

believer wrote: Raising taxes in the midst of the "worst economy since the Great Depression" is not the answer.

A third of stimulus package was tax cuts including a frontloading of depreciation deductions for large corporations...an absolutely huge deduction. Most Americans were offered a tax cut of some kind in that bill...but it's referred to as a socialist/porkulus/communist/country-music hating P.O.S.

You guys complain about spending, but this bill had a lot of tax cuts and tax cuts ain't free neither.

The right is now saying..."it doesn't count unless you cut taxes across the board" like JFK. Yeah, you want to go back to that utopia wherein it was thought that rates as high as 70% were justified...please, be my guest.

Tax give-backs or temporary cuts DO NOT WORK to stimulate the economy.

The reason: In tough times, people will likely use it to pay down debt or save it. They won't use it in the way it's needed to stimulate economic recovery.

For that to happen, people need to believe the cuts are PERMANENT, or at least have a decent chance of staying in place for a lengthy period of time.

^^^^DING DING DING

Once again you beat me to it. Damn! lol

I'd love for some liberal to explain how taking money out of the private sector and giving it to the federal government is going to be a net benefit to the economy. If so, then let's just take 100% of everything and send it to Washington.

And I'm still waiting for my tax cut Obama promised.

I haven't had a chance to read all of the posts here, but I DID notice the title - an ex-Reagan administration person changing sides.

Here's another one: Jim Webb - D Senator from Virginia (former Secretary of the Navy). I think a border collie could run against him in '12 and win. Webb is an absolute idiot.

If you didn't watch the clip, Stockman is predicting that we will be raising taxes for the next decade. As he notes, taxes were cut for the last 25 years and it DOESN'T work . While cuts to spending must be considered too, he notes that we are way too deep into debt to get out just from cutting spending. Nothing like Reagan's Budget Director admiting the awful truth about it.

Paladin wrote: If you didn't watch the clip, Stockman is predicting that we will be raising taxes for the next decade. As he notes, taxes were cut for the last 25 years and it DOESN'T work . While cuts to spending must be considered too, he notes that we are way too deep into debt to get out just from cutting spending. Nothing like Reagan's Budget Director admiting the awful truth about it.

There won't be any spending cuts though. If they raise taxes for the next ten years, they will increase spending for the next ten years. The government is completely incapable of cutting spending. It's never going to happen.

Paladin wrote: If you didn't watch the clip, Stockman is predicting that we will be raising taxes for the next decade. As he notes, taxes were cut for the last 25 years and it DOESN'T work . While cuts to spending must be considered too, he notes that we are way too deep into debt to get out just from cutting spending. Nothing like Reagan's Budget Director admiting the awful truth about it.

Bullshit. Tax cuts to stimulate private economic growth worked for JFK, Reagan and Bush II. The problem was there weren't simultaneous cuts in government spending to compensate which Stockman knows needed to happen but didn't. In fact spending has increased exponentially since the early 1960's.

That being said if you lefties can GUARANTEE me that you'll stop spending taxpayer dollars like there's no tomorrow, I'll be happy to entertain the idea of reasonable tax increases to balance the budget.

Since that will never happen especially with the children currently running DC, I think I'm reasonably safe from having to eat that humble pie.

tk421 wrote:There won't be any spending cuts though. If they raise taxes for the next ten years, they will increase spending for the next ten years. The government is completely incapable of cutting spending. It's never going to happen.

^^^This

believer wrote:

Paladin wrote: If you didn't watch the clip, Stockman is predicting that we will be raising taxes for the next decade. As he notes, taxes were cut for the last 25 years and it DOESN'T work . While cuts to spending must be considered too, he notes that we are way too deep into debt to get out just from cutting spending. Nothing like Reagan's Budget Director admiting the awful truth about it.

Bullshit. Tax cuts to stimulate private economic growth worked for JFK, Reagan and Bush II. The problem was there weren't simultaneous cuts in government spending to compensate which Stockman knows needed to happen but didn't. In fact spending has increased exponentially since the early 1960's.

That being said if you lefties can GUARANTEE me that you'll stop spending taxpayer dollars like there's no tomorrow, I'll be happy to entertain the idea of reasonable tax increases to balance the budget.

Since that will never happen especially with the children currently running DC, I think I'm reasonably safe from having to eat that humble pie.

tk421 wrote:There won't be any spending cuts though. If they raise taxes for the next ten years, they will increase spending for the next ten years. The government is completely incapable of cutting spending. It's never going to happen.

^^^This

You'll have to ask the current "righties" as well.

The government could tax the entire country 100% and I guarantee they would spend more money than they take in.

My wife is better at it than the government is. Trust me.

JoeA1010 wrote: Cutting taxes is a farce? What utter nonsense. Heck, why not just tax everyone 100% if taxes are such a great thing for the economy?

Silly retort, really. Conversely, what would happen if we eliminated all taxes? Just as stupid.

JoeA1010 wrote: I'd love for some liberal to explain how taking money out of the private sector and giving it to the federal government is going to be a net benefit to the economy. If so, then let's just take 100% of everything and send it to Washington.

And I'm still waiting for my tax cut Obama promised.

So you're in favor of not balancing the budget either. Dems tax and spend. GOPs borrow and spend.

Which is worse?

Back to the original post: one guy switches his opinion and suddenly HE is the gospel according to all that his holy where taxes and spending are concerned?

I don't think so.

You may like what he says, Paladin, but he's ONE GUY who, frankly, isn't even relevant, anymore.

Stockman has been off the political radar scope since the early 80's. He must be running out of money.

It has been my experience that Ronald Reagan is the gold standard for most so called conservatives. It seems like we constantly hear about how great "Saint Reagan" and his administration was...

Now one of his main economists speaks out in favor of Obama and it's "he's irrelevant" and "he must be running out of money".

You guys are so predictable...

The past is only relevant when it comes to Obama and Ayers, Alinsky, etc., etc.

"It has been my experience that Ronald Reagan is the gold standard for most so called conservatives. It seems like we constantly hear about how great "Saint Reagan" and his administration was..."

Wasn't Joe Lieberman a public figure not too many years ago? What happened to that guy?!

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: It has been my experience that Ronald Reagan is the gold standard for most so called conservatives. It seems like we constantly hear about how great "Saint Reagan" and his administration was...

Now one of his main economists speaks out in favor of Obama and it's "he's irrelevant" and "he must be running out of money".

You guys are so predictable...

Reagan is the gold standard.

When he says this same stuff, I'll believe it has relevance. Until then...