Obama : Reagan a "wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-04-2012, 01:27 PM
RE: Obama : Reagan a "wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior"
(16-04-2012 01:18 PM)MrGnawty Wrote:  I'm pretty sure the Bush Tax Cuts increased the debt more than any of Bush's other policies combined. And we all know the effects the debt has had on the economy.


Cutting spending is one way to help, but you can't solve all problems that way. There is only so much you can get without doing serious damage. It takes a mix of reduced spending as well as revenue increases through taxes.
I don't know that they cost more than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I disagree with you. We could have a functioning government with zero federal income tax. It doesn't take that much money to run a small stable government.


Quote:
Congressman Paul is a supremely strong
and ardent supporter of balanced budgets, paying off the national debt,
and returning the size of the federal government to it's
constitutionally mandated roles. He supports ending federal programs not
authorized in the Constitution - such as Education, OSHA, and the EPA -
and only funding items which the federal government is constitutionally
mandated to do - such as border protection.
As
early as 1988, Congressman Paul was warning about the size of the
yearly deficits while he campaigned for the Libertarian Party's
nomination to the Presidency. Congressman Paul noted that President
Reagan campaigned on reduced spending and balanced budgets, but once in
office he did not abide by those principles.
In
2005, Congressman Paul noted that what the Bush administration was
referring to as "balanced budgets" were nothing more than small
decreases from desired spending levels, coupled with unrealistic
expectations on the growth of the economy. That same year, Congressman
Paul noted that no amount of spending will ever satisfy those who
believe government should address every human problem and involve itself
in every aspect of our lives. As proof, he cited those who thought that
the $2.4 trillion dollar budget was inadequate and notes that by 2015
they would be saying the same thing about a $5 trillion dollar budget.
Congressman
Paul's desire to reduce the size of government covers all facets. He
has stated that republicans that supported the Medicare Part D drug
prescription plan can no longer claim to support small government or
balanced budgets, and neither can those who support military
intervention overseas while funding the items off budget. He has stated
that he would find it difficult to vote for any budget that did not cut
the size of government by at least %25, noting that the government in
2006 was twice as large as it was in 1990.
In
2008, Congressman Paul spoke about the budget for 2008 and called it
a monument to irresponsibility and profligacy. He noted that each party
sought to increase spending with the only variance being on the
direction of spending.
Congressman
Paul has consistently opposed raising the debt ceiling. In recent years
as the pace of the debt increase gains speed, he has spoken out
consistently about the need for those who are serious about reduced
spending to make a stand and refuse to authorize further debt limit
increases.
Congressman Paul's
opposition to deficit spending and increasing debt is based on the
inevitable repercussions of those actions. He notes that the solution to
paying off large debts is always to print more money and lessen the
value of the currency to make paying off those debt easier. Eventually,
all governments that attempt this fail due to their inability to control
the inflationary results of too much monetary devaluation. In the short
term, this inflation is little more than a tax imposed on middle class
Americans as the value of their savings is lessened.
Consistent
with his voting record and numerous statements, Congressman Paul has
cosponsored legislation to require a 2/3 majority vote to raise the
national debt limit as opposed to the nominal 50% majority vote.
As
part of his 2012 presidential campaign, Congressman Paul has stated
that he would reduce spending by $1 trillion in the first year. This
would be accomplished by reducing the size of government by closing the
departments of Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education, as well
as abolishing the Transportation Security Administration.


A Ron Paul presidency would reduce debt to the point that in as little as 15 years we could abolish the federal income tax.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 01:37 PM
RE: Obama : Reagan a "wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior"
(16-04-2012 01:27 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 01:18 PM)MrGnawty Wrote:  I'm pretty sure the Bush Tax Cuts increased the debt more than any of Bush's other policies combined. And we all know the effects the debt has had on the economy.


Cutting spending is one way to help, but you can't solve all problems that way. There is only so much you can get without doing serious damage. It takes a mix of reduced spending as well as revenue increases through taxes.
I don't know that they cost more than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I disagree with you. We could have a functioning government with zero federal income tax. It doesn't take that much money to run a small stable government.

Yeah, actually... more than both wars, TARP Fannie & Freddie, and the economic downturn combined.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06...-tax-cuts/
&
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20...64812.html
Quote:
Congressman Paul is a supremely strong
and ardent supporter of balanced budgets, paying off the national debt,
and returning the size of the federal government to it's
constitutionally mandated roles. He supports ending federal programs not
authorized in the Constitution - such as Education, OSHA, and the EPA -
and only funding items which the federal government is constitutionally
mandated to do - such as border protection.
As
early as 1988, Congressman Paul was warning about the size of the
yearly deficits while he campaigned for the Libertarian Party's
nomination to the Presidency. Congressman Paul noted that President
Reagan campaigned on reduced spending and balanced budgets, but once in
office he did not abide by those principles.
In
2005, Congressman Paul noted that what the Bush administration was
referring to as "balanced budgets" were nothing more than small
decreases from desired spending levels, coupled with unrealistic
expectations on the growth of the economy. That same year, Congressman
Paul noted that no amount of spending will ever satisfy those who
believe government should address every human problem and involve itself
in every aspect of our lives. As proof, he cited those who thought that
the $2.4 trillion dollar budget was inadequate and notes that by 2015
they would be saying the same thing about a $5 trillion dollar budget.
Congressman
Paul's desire to reduce the size of government covers all facets. He
has stated that republicans that supported the Medicare Part D drug
prescription plan can no longer claim to support small government or
balanced budgets, and neither can those who support military
intervention overseas while funding the items off budget. He has stated
that he would find it difficult to vote for any budget that did not cut
the size of government by at least %25, noting that the government in
2006 was twice as large as it was in 1990.
In
2008, Congressman Paul spoke about the budget for 2008 and called it
a monument to irresponsibility and profligacy. He noted that each party
sought to increase spending with the only variance being on the
direction of spending.
Congressman
Paul has consistently opposed raising the debt ceiling. In recent years
as the pace of the debt increase gains speed, he has spoken out
consistently about the need for those who are serious about reduced
spending to make a stand and refuse to authorize further debt limit
increases.
Congressman Paul's
opposition to deficit spending and increasing debt is based on the
inevitable repercussions of those actions. He notes that the solution to
paying off large debts is always to print more money and lessen the
value of the currency to make paying off those debt easier. Eventually,
all governments that attempt this fail due to their inability to control
the inflationary results of too much monetary devaluation. In the short
term, this inflation is little more than a tax imposed on middle class
Americans as the value of their savings is lessened.
Consistent
with his voting record and numerous statements, Congressman Paul has
cosponsored legislation to require a 2/3 majority vote to raise the
national debt limit as opposed to the nominal 50% majority vote.
As
part of his 2012 presidential campaign, Congressman Paul has stated
that he would reduce spending by $1 trillion in the first year. This
would be accomplished by reducing the size of government by closing the
departments of Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education, as well
as abolishing the Transportation Security Administration.


A Ron Paul presidency would reduce debt to the point that in as little as 15 years we could abolish the federal income tax.

That can't really be said. It's purely conjecture.

My response is in teal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 01:42 PM
RE: Obama : Reagan a "wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior"
(16-04-2012 01:37 PM)MrGnawty Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 01:27 PM)germanyt Wrote:  I don't know that they cost more than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I disagree with you. We could have a functioning government with zero federal income tax. It doesn't take that much money to run a small stable government.

Yeah, actually... more than both wars, TARP Fannie & Freddie, and the economic downturn combined.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06...-tax-cuts/
&
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/20...64812.html


A Ron Paul presidency would reduce debt to the point that in as little as 15 years we could abolish the federal income tax.

That can't really be said. It's purely conjecture.

My response is in teal.
I wasn't aware the cuts cost that much. But the current administration doesn't want to end the cuts for everyone. Just on the rich. Which will raise little to no revenue. So unless they plan and raising everyone's taxes then they really aren't concerned with debt. They only care about punishing the rich because it's not fair to the poor for someone to own a Bentley and a private jet. And I disagree with that position. As for Paul, you're right. But with no goal you have no result.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 01:51 PM
RE: Obama : Reagan a "wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior"
(16-04-2012 01:42 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 01:37 PM)MrGnawty Wrote:  My response is in teal.
I wasn't aware the cuts cost that much. But the current administration doesn't want to end the cuts for everyone. Just on the rich. Which will raise little to no revenue. So unless they plan and raising everyone's taxes then they really aren't concerned with debt. They only care about punishing the rich because it's not fair to the poor for someone to own a Bentley and a private jet. And I disagree with that position. As for Paul, you're right. But with no goal you have no result.
At the moment you can't really afford to raise taxes on everyone or you might send the economy into shock. It is a slow and steady race to be sure. Radical changes, spending cuts, and taxes can have adverse effects. Is it not better to start slowly from the top down? Start with those who can afford it, pump that revenue into investments like infrastructure to jolt the middle class before increasing their taxes and tackling the debt.

It seems to me to be a balancing act. You can't just gut spending wildly, and you can't just jack up taxes to the way they were during Clinton. An "all of the above approach". I don't know why people think we can just throw in a Mr Fix It President into Office and suddenly everything will get better. Things don't work like that. Nothing is that simple.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 02:03 PM
RE: Obama : Reagan a "wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior"
(16-04-2012 01:51 PM)MrGnawty Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 01:42 PM)germanyt Wrote:  I wasn't aware the cuts cost that much. But the current administration doesn't want to end the cuts for everyone. Just on the rich. Which will raise little to no revenue. So unless they plan and raising everyone's taxes then they really aren't concerned with debt. They only care about punishing the rich because it's not fair to the poor for someone to own a Bentley and a private jet. And I disagree with that position. As for Paul, you're right. But with no goal you have no result.
At the moment you can't really afford to raise taxes on everyone or you might send the economy into shock. It is a slow and steady race to be sure. Radical changes, spending cuts, and taxes can have adverse effects. Is it not better to start slowly from the top down? Start with those who can afford it, pump that revenue into investments like infrastructure to jolt the middle class before increasing their taxes and tackling the debt.

It seems to me to be a balancing act. You can't just gut spending wildly, and you can't just jack up taxes to the way they were during Clinton. An "all of the above approach". I don't know why people think we can just throw in a Mr Fix It President into Office and suddenly everything will get better. Things don't work like that. Nothing is that simple.
I agree you can't just raise everyone's taxes right now. But I'm tired of hearing that we can't raise taxes because it'll cripple the economy. Oh you can't cut spending either because it'll collapse the economy. It's nonsense. Closing the TSA for example will save tons of money an in no way effect the economy negatively. I fail to see how cutting government spending on unnecessary agencies and war will harm the economy. Why do people say this and where is the evidence for it? I'll even accept anecdotal evidence for this since I've never heard one good or even one bad reason why this would happen.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 02:09 PM
RE: Obama : Reagan a "wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior"
(16-04-2012 02:03 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 01:51 PM)MrGnawty Wrote:  At the moment you can't really afford to raise taxes on everyone or you might send the economy into shock. It is a slow and steady race to be sure. Radical changes, spending cuts, and taxes can have adverse effects. Is it not better to start slowly from the top down? Start with those who can afford it, pump that revenue into investments like infrastructure to jolt the middle class before increasing their taxes and tackling the debt.

It seems to me to be a balancing act. You can't just gut spending wildly, and you can't just jack up taxes to the way they were during Clinton. An "all of the above approach". I don't know why people think we can just throw in a Mr Fix It President into Office and suddenly everything will get better. Things don't work like that. Nothing is that simple.
I agree you can't just raise everyone's taxes right now. But I'm tired of hearing that we can't raise taxes because it'll cripple the economy. Oh you can't cut spending either because it'll collapse the economy. It's nonsense. Closing the TSA for example will save tons of money an in no way effect the economy negatively. I fail to see how cutting government spending on unnecessary agencies and war will harm the economy. Why do people say this and where is the evidence for it? I'll even accept anecdotal evidence for this since I've never heard one good or even one bad reason why this would happen.
But Obama did "end" the war and is ending the other. He is attempting to merge 6 government agencies into 1, subsequently saving 3 billion (smaller government and a mild cost reduction in one small move). The hard part about getting rid of the TSA employs 60,000 people.... that's a lot of people who will lose their jobs and I can't think of anyone who wants to run on a pro jobs platform who will willingly cut thousands of jobs outright.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 02:26 PM
RE: Obama : Reagan a "wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior"
(16-04-2012 02:09 PM)MrGnawty Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 02:03 PM)germanyt Wrote:  I agree you can't just raise everyone's taxes right now. But I'm tired of hearing that we can't raise taxes because it'll cripple the economy. Oh you can't cut spending either because it'll collapse the economy. It's nonsense. Closing the TSA for example will save tons of money an in no way effect the economy negatively. I fail to see how cutting government spending on unnecessary agencies and war will harm the economy. Why do people say this and where is the evidence for it? I'll even accept anecdotal evidence for this since I've never heard one good or even one bad reason why this would happen.
But Obama did "end" the war and is ending the other. He is attempting to merge 6 government agencies into 1, subsequently saving 3 billion (smaller government and a mild cost reduction in one small move). The hard part about getting rid of the TSA employs 60,000 people.... that's a lot of people who will lose their jobs and I can't think of anyone who wants to run on a pro jobs platform who will willingly cut thousands of jobs outright.
He didn't exactly end the war. The dates were set before he took office. He just carried out the plan. 3 billion is laughable. And less than 1 year's TSA budget could put all 60000 of their former employees through a bachelors program or trade school. Can't hate a company that fires you but offers to train you to do just about any other job you want.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 02:30 PM
RE: Obama : Reagan a "wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior"
(16-04-2012 02:26 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 02:09 PM)MrGnawty Wrote:  But Obama did "end" the war and is ending the other. He is attempting to merge 6 government agencies into 1, subsequently saving 3 billion (smaller government and a mild cost reduction in one small move). The hard part about getting rid of the TSA employs 60,000 people.... that's a lot of people who will lose their jobs and I can't think of anyone who wants to run on a pro jobs platform who will willingly cut thousands of jobs outright.
He didn't exactly end the war. The dates were set before he took office. He just carried out the plan. 3 billion is laughable. And less than 1 year's TSA budget could put all 60000 of their former employees through a bachelors program or trade school. Can't hate a company that fires you but offers to train you to do just about any other job you want.
If only trade schools or bachelors degrees actually amounted to anything anymore.

And yes, 3 billion is laughable, but lots of small changes are better than a few drastic ones.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 02:49 PM
RE: Obama : Reagan a "wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior"
(16-04-2012 02:30 PM)MrGnawty Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 02:26 PM)germanyt Wrote:  He didn't exactly end the war. The dates were set before he took office. He just carried out the plan. 3 billion is laughable. And less than 1 year's TSA budget could put all 60000 of their former employees through a bachelors program or trade school. Can't hate a company that fires you but offers to train you to do just about any other job you want.
If only trade schools or bachelors degrees actually amounted to anything anymore.

And yes, 3 billion is laughable, but lots of small changes are better than a few drastic ones.
Come to Louisiana knowing how to weld or build a house. Or drive a truck or forklift. There are plenty of jobs here and the right school will just about gurantee you one. I work at a school that teaches Medical/Dental Assistant, Medical Office (billing and coding) and Massage Therapy. We average over 90% employment upon graduation. They amount to a lot here.


And again I disagree with you. Unless you view 20% spending cuts across the board throughout the federal government as lots of small changes.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: