Taxes and the Times
April 25th, 2008 by Peter SudermanThe New York Times takes a stand: Taxes must go higher! How bold, how tough-minded, how serious, how… utterly, utterly predictable. The editorial is right that the candidates are all making spending promises they can’t keep, and that the budget has been mismanaged. But the solution here isn’t to make a grim face and say, “taxes must be raised!” Instead, it’s to stop proposing additional spending programs and start proposing substantial reductions — beyond just earmarks — in the programs which already exist. That means things like restructuring our entitlement system and getting rid of corporate welfare and wasteful ag subsidies. But the New York Times won’t have any of that — or at least not when they can sound brave and bold and blah blah blah by regurgitating every liberal’s favorite line: The government needs to take more of your money.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
No one of any serious nature actually believes that we are going to get out of the uttery horrible fiscal mess that the GOP has saddled this country with without raising taxes (on those that can afford to give up more of their disposable income), period.
April 26th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
sorry Mister Guy but i think Congress just passed a new law and signed into law today by the President which is that you now owe the Federal Gov another 25% in taxes.
How about cutting spending. OH yea i know you say it will never happen. Then get use to the Congress saying you must owe all your money you earn to the idiots in the Federal Gov. AS just wait about 4 years when taxes go through the roof. Be time to move out of the country then.
April 27th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Humpf! I know I cannot argue with ignorance, nor debate with stupidity, but here goes! Mister Guy - what do you do when you are out of money? Spend more? Sounds like the wise business who’s plan is to buy widgets at $1.05, sale them at $1.00, and make up the difference plus aprofit through the volume in sales! Faster than a speeding slug, huh? LOL
April 28th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
What law are you talking about Roger? Cutting spending is fine…I doubt we would agree on what needs to be cut, but I say go where the real, big money is first.
The choice between economic policies is clear I think…the GOP borrow and spend into oblivion (supply-side) or the Democratic spend within your means (if a program is worth it…it’s worth having a funding source through spending cuts or tax increases). The USA is not “out of money” BTW…not by a long shot…LOL!!!
April 29th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Wow, Mister Guy….can you really be that…..liberal? The Democratic spend within your means?! Is that their method then?! Please! And if you look at M3 (which the government doesn’t publish anymore, I wonder why), you will see that, yes, in fact, the USA is out of money. Well, until they print more of it that is. **sigh**
April 30th, 2008 at 2:24 am
I’m sorry…which Party managed to balance the budget in the 1990s?? Hmmmm…
April 30th, 2008 at 9:58 am
The Republicans controlled congress you dipshit. Clinton proposed a budget that two years saw nominal surpluses. Off Budget was still a deficit but regardless of that you would be hard pressed to take two years of nominal surplus as a indicator that the democratic party balanced the budget. Especially when those budgets were passing through Republican Congresses.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Try again…the scheme that eventually led to the first balanced federal budget passed Congress and was signed by President Clinton with absolutely NO Republican votes in August 1993, period. From 1993-2001, the federal debt went down in terms of a percentage of GDP (a favorite metric of the GOP) by 8.8%…that was the first time since Jimmy Carter.
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:56 am
hmmmm… I think we should do additional research on these statements.
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Mmmmm…spam…