President to propose tax increases <shocker!>

[senseamp]

Those jobs remained only because the dotcom bubble was quickly replaced by the housing bubble. If Bush/Greenspan hadn't slashed rates, the big recession would simply have happened sooner and you'd be blaming it on something other than housing.

You fools think you can fix bad policy with more bad policy. All you're really doing is postponing the day of reckoning.

That is simply a wrong assertion on every level. There was no systemic risk from the dot com bubble. Investors who bet on pets.com lost their money, and that was that. If anything the IT infrastructure build up from the dot com bubble, while not rewarding to the investors in dot com bubble stocks is a net positive for the long term potential of the economy. The bubble also attracted talented college students to enter the technology field, which is a positive value creator over the long term, instead of misdirecting them into finance and real estate speculation as the housing bubble has done.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
These numbers show the largest reduction in government workforce of any modern president was during the Clinton years.

I'm using your post to add something (I think) important to the Clinton discussion I haven't seen mentioned yet - Clinton was the benficiary of the "Peace Dividend". The Cold War was costly, he had the luxury of ramping down as it had ended.

Whatever people think of Clinton, there's simply no arguing the he was the beneficiary of good fortunes. Wintel, .com bubble, and the Peace Dividend and things were relatively quit on the international front at that time.

These things were not the result of his efforts, he was simply lucky to be the person in office at that time.

Fern

 

[senseamp]

Peace dividend is a result of not starting big unnecessary wars. It's not just good fortune, it's good thinking.

 

[HendrixFan]

Peace dividend is a result of not starting big unnecessary wars. It's not just good fortune, it's good thinking.

This. While I won't deny Clinton had the opportunity, he actually took advantage of it. He did cut government and seek to balance the budget when many others would have given it all away. Democrats would have done handouts, Republicans would have (and did once Bush took office) cut taxes.

 

[werepossum]

This. While I won't deny Clinton had the opportunity, he actually took advantage of it. He did cut government and seek to balance the budget when many others would have given it all away. Democrats would have done handouts, Republicans would have (and did once Bush took office) cut taxes.

It's also worth pointing out that Clinton's own budgets showed deficits without end. The Republican Congress passed budgets with lower growth, which eventually balanced the budget (if you can overlook that they did it by spending the excess Social Security receipts.)

Of course, many of those same Republicans then spent like drunken sailors on speed under Bush II, which shows that few politicians are worth a damn after six to ten years in D.C. Politicians, like diapers, need changing regularly and for much the same reason.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...Of course, many of those same Republicans then spent like drunken sailors on speed under Bush II, which shows that few politicians are worth a damn after six to ten years in D.C. Politicians, like diapers, need changing regularly and for much the same reason.

Might it be that President Bush was willing to sign off on the Republicans' wasteful spending priorities while President Clinton was not?

Not that Mr. Clinton was any more fiscally righteous than Mr Bush, of course, rather that he would endorse only Democrats' wasteful spending priorities instead...

 

[Jhhnn]

This describes not only the "resident righties," but folks like yourself as well, our "resident lefties."

Didn't even read the linked article, Did you?

Can we also agree that historically when we've "fixed" the deficit with tax increases and spending cuts, we've gotten tax increases without spending cuts?

Personally I'm fine with increasing tax rates to Clinton era rates for everyone, just as soon as we have two or three years where the deficit is significantly cut. (Meaning that the year's additional debt is 25% or more lower than the previous year's additional debt; moving things off budget or into "emergency bills" isn't going to cut it.) Right now we've chopped a couple days' spending, roughly half of which is merely smoke and mirrors, and from Democrats you'd think Herod had ordered the death of every first-born son AND his unwed mother. In reality, our 2011 budget is a whole Stimulus Maximus above the 2008 budget.

I'm sorry, but repubs did just the opposite of what you said- cut taxes *and* increased spending. Now they say cut spending and we'll think about tax increases, which is ass-backwards form where they put us. It's the standard flimflam. The only taxes they want to raise are on the middle and working classes, not on the plutocracy, where the money is. The only entitlements they want to cut are for the middle and working classes, as well- not corporate welfare, not the entitlement of America's wealthiest to enjoy the lowest taxes on their income of any first world Rich.

Ryan's proposals prove that in ways that anybody who isn't ideologically blinded should be able to see.

When was the last time taxes at the top were actually raised, anyway? 1993, the modest increases of the Clinton era?

 

[senseamp]

It's also worth pointing out that Clinton's own budgets showed deficits without end. The Republican Congress passed budgets with lower growth, which eventually balanced the budget (if you can overlook that they did it by spending the excess Social Security receipts.)

Of course, many of those same Republicans then spent like drunken sailors on speed under Bush II, which shows that few politicians are worth a damn after six to ten years in D.C. Politicians, like diapers, need changing regularly and for much the same reason.

Clinton had locked in higher tax revenues before Republicans came in and blocked attempts to roll those tax hikes back.
On top of that he brought out the best in Republicans, and motivated them to cut spending. If you think they'd be as eager to cut spending if it wasn't Clinton in the White House, you just need to look at Bush years.
The combination of Clinton's tax policies and his effect on the Republican spending policies is what balanced the budget.

 

[Balt]

Good, everyone from top to bottom need to pay for the services from the government that they demand.

Maybe once once people start helping to pay for it themselves, they will not demand as many services.

Yep. Few will want any cuts to entitlements until they are actually paying for them.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Americans are so funny. They whine and moan about government debt, then they whine and moan about taxes. Haha!

 

[matt0611]

Americans are so funny. They whine and moan about government debt, then they whine and moan about taxes. Haha!

And the only way to not have either are spending cuts, but they wine about this too.

Low taxes, low deficits, lots of services. Pick any and only 2, not 3 of them.

 

[JD50]

Americans are so funny. They whine and moan about government debt, then they whine and moan about taxes. Haha!

I'm sure if anyone gave a shit about New Zealanders you could probably find a message board with them whining about stuff too.

 

[boomerang]

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Eat the Rich

 

[WackyDan]

We don't have the money, plus if you can afford a house, you don't need a tax break.

Bullshit. The mortgage tax exemption is a catalyst to help people afford homes that normally couldn't. Do I think you need to take that exemption if you are living in a million dollar home? NO... but any home that fits somewhere in the median price for your community? YES

 

[MovingTarget]

Anybody seen this proposal? Although I agree with it (mostly), it has about the same snowball's chance as the Ryan plan...

http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The&#37;20CPC FY2012 Budget.pdf

 

[werepossum]

Might it be that President Bush was willing to sign off on the Republicans' wasteful spending priorities while President Clinton was not?

Not that Mr. Clinton was any more fiscally righteous than Mr Bush, of course, rather that he would endorse only Democrats' wasteful spending priorities instead...

No - Clinton vetoed or threatened vetoes only when he thought the Republican cuts (which were no more than slower increases) were "too draconian"; Clinton's only actions were to increase spending.

SNIP

I'm sorry, but repubs did just the opposite of what you said- cut taxes *and* increased spending. Now they say cut spending and we'll think about tax increases, which is ass-backwards form where they put us. It's the standard flimflam. The only taxes they want to raise are on the middle and working classes, not on the plutocracy, where the money is. The only entitlements they want to cut are for the middle and working classes, as well- not corporate welfare, not the entitlement of America's wealthiest to enjoy the lowest taxes on their income of any first world Rich.

Ryan's proposals prove that in ways that anybody who isn't ideologically blinded should be able to see.

When was the last time taxes at the top were actually raised, anyway? 1993, the modest increases of the Clinton era?

Republicans slowed the rate of increases and in a very few instances made very small cuts. While spending did go up, spending increased much more slowly than under Clinton's DOA budgets, under which the deficits increased yearly until some time after Clinton would have left office, at which time presumably a miracle would happen and the budget would become balanced.

And you and I will have to agree to disagree on whether or not raising taxes is an accomplishment.

 

[spidey07]

Bullshit. The mortgage tax exemption is a catalyst to help people afford homes that normally couldn't. Do I think you need to take that exemption if you are living in a million dollar home? NO... but any home that fits somewhere in the median price for your community? YES

Why should some be able to take the deduction and others not? In some places a million dollar home isn't a whole lot. Keep it fair, anybody should be able to use the deduction no matter the mortgage amount or their income. No more class warfare.

 

[HendrixFan]

No - Clinton vetoed or threatened vetoes only when he thought the Republican cuts (which were no more than slower increases) were "too draconian"; Clinton's only actions were to increase spending.

That is an interesting take on the situation. Clinton came out of the gate in 1993 working to reduce the deficit, which he claimed was a big cause of the poor performing economy. Working with a democratic majority in Congress he was able to get quite a few things pushed through and the immediate results were obvious, as is indicated by the numbers I have provided in this thread.

The Republicans shifted gears in 1995 when they regained control of the Congress. In response to Clinton's huge popularity at being a fiscal conservative, they brought out their fiscal conservative guns. Of course their proposals were more of the blanket aggressive cuts. You can see a similar approach now with recent Republican proposals.

The government shutdown battles were over what cuts would be made in the drive to balance the budget. Since Clinton was such a smooth talker and Gingrich wasn't too liked, the public sided with the Democrats in the shutdown battles. Once that happened, Clinton was able to ram down a compromise that was tilted more towards his agenda.

It was a great time to be in. Both parties were fighting each other to see who could balance the budget faster. If only government always operated in this manner. Make no mistake about it though, much of the spending cuts and tax increases that lead to a balanced budget had a heavy Clinton tilt.

As the numbers above demonstrated, spending as a percentage of GDP went down 4% in Clinton's eight years. Revenue as a percentage of GDP only went up 3% (in an expanded economy) so more gain was made in the spending area when it came to balancing the budget.

And you and I will have to agree to disagree on whether or not raising taxes is an accomplishment.

Should we have no taxes then? At some point we had to raise taxes to get where we are today. The simple truth is that we have to pay for the government we have. If we have been spending recklessly as a country, the appropriate response will always be a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases.

 

[WackyDan]

Why should some be able to take the deduction and others not? In some places a million dollar home isn't a whole lot. Keep it fair, anybody should be able to use the deduction no matter the mortgage amount or their income. No more class warfare.

Reading skills? ... I also said "but any home that fits somewhere in the median price for your community?"

 

[spidey07]

Reading skills? ... I also said "but any home that fits somewhere in the median price for your community?"

But why should you be deciding how much house I should buy? If I want a large expensive home then I should be able to claim the deduction. Keep it fair, everybody, all incomes. Anything else is pure marxist class warfare BS which is what Obama has been preaching regarding this deduction.

You really wanna kill the housing market? Eliminate that deduction for people that can actually afford expensive homes. Median homes in my area is probably 180k. But there are a TON of 600-750K+ houses being built and people are buying them. Remove that deduction and nobody will be buying. You're talking about adding a potentail 10,000 dollars in extra taxes on people.

 

[ElFenix]

But why should you be deciding how much house I should buy? If I want a large expensive home then I should be able to claim the deduction. Keep it fair, everybody, all incomes. Anything else is pure marxist class warfare BS which is what Obama has been preaching regarding this deduction.

You really wanna kill the housing market? Eliminate that deduction for people that can actually afford expensive homes. Median homes in my area is probably 180k. But there are a TON of 600-750K+ houses being built and people are buying them. Remove that deduction and nobody will be buying. You're talking about adding a potentail 10,000 dollars in extra taxes on people.

government interference in the market.

 

[manimal]

government interference in the market.

people only like government interference when it helps them..

when its the poor or needy...not so much

 

[werepossum]

That is an interesting take on the situation. Clinton came out of the gate in 1993 working to reduce the deficit, which he claimed was a big cause of the poor performing economy. Working with a democratic majority in Congress he was able to get quite a few things pushed through and the immediate results were obvious, as is indicated by the numbers I have provided in this thread.

The Republicans shifted gears in 1995 when they regained control of the Congress. In response to Clinton's huge popularity at being a fiscal conservative, they brought out their fiscal conservative guns. Of course their proposals were more of the blanket aggressive cuts. You can see a similar approach now with recent Republican proposals.

The government shutdown battles were over what cuts would be made in the drive to balance the budget. Since Clinton was such a smooth talker and Gingrich wasn't too liked, the public sided with the Democrats in the shutdown battles. Once that happened, Clinton was able to ram down a compromise that was tilted more towards his agenda.

It was a great time to be in. Both parties were fighting each other to see who could balance the budget faster. If only government always operated in this manner. Make no mistake about it though, much of the spending cuts and tax increases that lead to a balanced budget had a heavy Clinton tilt.

As the numbers above demonstrated, spending as a percentage of GDP went down 4% in Clinton's eight years. Revenue as a percentage of GDP only went up 3% (in an expanded economy) so more gain was made in the spending area when it came to balancing the budget.



Should we have no taxes then? At some point we had to raise taxes to get where we are today. The simple truth is that we have to pay for the government we have. If we have been spending recklessly as a country, the appropriate response will always be a mixture of spending cuts and tax increases.

Both sides were NOT "fighting each other to see who could balance the budget faster." Go back and search out Clinton's budgets, which the Democrats refused to even introduce for a vote. Clinton's budgets never showed a balanced budget until some mythical time long after he would have left office. The Republicans were fighting to cut spending, Clinton (having already raised taxes) was fighting to spend more than the Pubbies wanted.

 

[HomerJS]

But why should you be deciding how much house I should buy? If I want a large expensive home then I should be able to claim the deduction. Keep it fair, everybody, all incomes. Anything else is pure marxist class warfare BS which is what Obama has been preaching regarding this deduction.

You really wanna kill the housing market? Eliminate that deduction for people that can actually afford expensive homes. Median homes in my area is probably 180k. But there are a TON of 600-750K+ houses being built and people are buying them. Remove that deduction and nobody will be buying. You're talking about adding a potentail 10,000 dollars in extra taxes on people.

You mean like bailing out banks with tax dollars and those guys keeping their multi-million dollar bonusus??

Biggest wealth transfer in history. You have nothing to bitch about.

 

[NoStateofMind]

What ever happened with "Ask not what you can do...."


Shared sacrifice is shared..

The fix spending first mantra is disingenuous since any way you slice it the deficit needs to be attacked from both sides of the issue..

Maybe, but in good faith lets see the cuts and then we'll talk about tax increases. Until then its all BS.