President Reagan on taxing the rich

[2003TIDE]

So the question is why was everyone for it when it came out of Reagan's mouth?

 

[BamaBrass]

I'm all for them paying their fair share. I'm also for everybody paying their fair share.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I agree with both but here's the problem. Reagan and Obama said the same things yet said them in vastly different times. Our economy is now global. We want more jobs "to come back" yet as we're crying and begging for these jobs to comeback we're in the same breath trying to get them to pay more money in taxes. Again, I agree that loopholes need to be closed and the "bus driver" doesn't need to pay more taxes than "Warren Buffet". But at the same time we have to realize who has the leverage in this situation.

 

[RollTide2U]

this is comparing apples to oranges - the 2 situations are not similar.

Two things. First of all, this speech was in 1985. Reagan had already spurred growth by cutting the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%. The economy was growing, and Reagan agreed to cut some loopholes for millionaires IF he could get spending cuts from Congress. That's part of what this speech was about - getting rid of some loopholes since the marginal rates had been cut and the economy was growing. The Congress was controlled by Democrats throughout both of his terms - they promised the spending cuts, but they never happened.

The situation we are in now is, our economy has stalled out at the CURRENT tax rates, which have been in effect for 10 years. So what Obama wants to do is RAISE taxes during a time of virtually no economic growth. There has been no huge boon to the economy like the marginal rate cuts of the early 80's. We're in a much different situation. It's one thing to take away loopholes, etc., AFTER you've cut marginal rates. It's yet another to raise taxes when no growth is happening.

So PLEASE keep bringing this stuff up out of context. You're just proving what most liberals prove - you take things woefully out of context.

I have no problem with some loopholes being cut as long as our corporate rates remain competitive with those in the rest of the world, because we are COMPETING with the rest of the world for jobs. However, tax credits such as the "green" credits that GE takes so much advantage of so that they paid NO taxes last year should be cut out. Make the corporate rates competitive, bring jobs back here, but don't give corporations incentives to pay no taxes AND send jobs overseas like GE does. Incidentally - Jeffrey Immelt spends a LOT of time with Pres. Obama at the White House....

 

[Bodhisattva]

Closing loopholes? Not a problem. There are only a few that are legitimate (and "green" energy development is not one of them).

Calling on the people who already overpay in taxes to "pay their fair share" while half the country pays nothing? That's an economic policy of theft, class warfare, and incompetence.

 

[Bamaro]

So the question is why was everyone for it when it came out of Reagan's mouth?

Because it came out of Reagans mouth then and now its not.

 

[Bamaro]

Yeah, that's it. Must be nice that our arguments are so easy to dismiss.

All tax increases are not created equal nor are all spending cuts. In this economy, care must be taken before raising any taxes or cutting any spending. If taxes have to go up, raising them where there is the most money already makes the most sense. This country was in much better economic shape during the 90s when rates were higher than now.

 

[bamacon]

All tax increases are not created equal nor are all spending cuts. In this economy, care must be taken before raising any taxes or cutting any spending. If taxes have to go up, raising them where there is the most money already makes the most sense. This country was in much better economic shape during the 90s when rates were higher than now.

We want you to spend more money by creating jobs, so in order to help we're going to take more of your money away from you. Liberal logic, which is, by its nature illogical...got it.

 

[RollTide2U]

All tax increases are not created equal nor are all spending cuts. In this economy, care must be taken before raising any taxes or cutting any spending. If taxes have to go up, raising them where there is the most money already makes the most sense. This country was in much better economic shape during the 90s when rates were higher than now.

There again, what about the "tech boom" did you miss in the 90's?? We have no such "boom" or "bubble" right now. The tech boom was on the way regardless of what Clinton did - the wheels were in motion since the 80's. It just happened to come about on Clinton's watch, and he could raise taxes during that time and it not be noticed like it would be now. But I can't help but wonder, if Clinton had CUT taxes, just how much would the economy have grown?? It boggles the mind. He probably would have actually had a REAL surplus instead of the fake one he and all the Dems claim he had.

 

[RollTide2U]

Closing loopholes? Not a problem. There are only a few that are legitimate (and "green" energy development is not one of them).

Calling on the people who already overpay in taxes to "pay their fair share" while half the country pays nothing? That's an economic policy of theft, class warfare, and incompetence.

I was traveling over the weekend, and Sunday I listened to a program on Fox that was very interesting. It was about the "green" economy...or lack thereof...and how the gov't has thrown billions of dollars into it - even providing training for jobs which don't exist and may never exist, all in the name of gov't investment in "green" jobs. There was also a segment on GE and how they could have retrofitted a factory which was manufacturing incandescent bulbs to manufacture CFL's, and they refused to spend the money and built a plant in Mexico. This is one of Obama's favorite corporations, as we all know. So good to know that Immelt works so hard to keep jobs here in the US, after we THE TAXPAYERS have given GE every "green" tax break in the book.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I must confess it is amusing to me how many times a liberal talks about how dumb and dangerous Reagan was - but the moment they can misuse him he's suddenly speaking ex cathedra.

Obama wants to raise taxes and spend it. His record of fiscal responsibility is zero. Saying Bush had deficits (which is true) is the other evasion tactic. Fact is Obama could hamstring the GOP if he actually proposed his middle class tax cut and tied it to revoking the higher level. But like every other liberal elected since Clinton, the man is lying. Of course he did reduce middle class taxes - lose your job and you're in the lower tax bracket.

 

[Bodhisattva]

All tax increases are not created equal nor are all spending cuts. In this economy, care must be taken before raising any taxes or cutting any spending. If taxes have to go up, raising them where there is the most money already makes the most sense. This country was in much better economic shape during the 90s when rates were higher than now.

Most government spending is wasteful and unconstitutional. Why not cut it?

To raise taxes you have to take money out of the private sector. So, do you really want to steal money from those that create wealth and give it to those that waste?

A little context about the 90s would be nice, as would some cause and effect. Are you suggesting the cause was higher taxes and the effect was an economic boom?

 

[Bamaro]

Closing loopholes? Not a problem. There are only a few that are legitimate (and "green" energy development is not one of them).
.

That couldn't be more wrong. It just has to be done much more intelligently. Solyndra should have never happened and should be investigated but this should NOT be an indictment of all green energy investment.

 

[Tidewater]

I'm all for closing loopholes, but loopholes are where Presidents and especially members of Congress get much of their power ("If you behave this way, I'll let you keep more of your money; if you don't behave the way I want, I'm taking your money."), so color me skeptical that Congress will deliver any meaningful closing of loopholes in the tax code. If they do, they will have my approval.

 

[crimsonaudio]

That couldn't be more wrong. It just has to be done much more intelligently. Solyndra should have never happened and should be investigated but this should NOT be an indictment of all green energy investment.

Agreed - the government has a LONG history of funding development that wouldn't likely have happened in the private market. NASA alone has changed our lives for the better in countless ways.

What we need is the modern Manhattan Project which looks for alternative energy.

 

[Bodhisattva]

That couldn't be more wrong. It just has to be done much more intelligently. Solyndra should have never happened and should be investigated but this should NOT be an indictment of all green energy investment.

Heh. You're putting a condition on government activity than doesn't exist. And then there's that Constitution thing.