Why Republicans refuse to trade immediate tax hikes for long term spending cuts

[ProfJohn]

If you want to know why Republicans refuse to look at raising taxes then here is your answer.

Twice in the past Republicans struck a deal with the Democrats that involved immediate tax increases in return for long term spending cuts and BOTH times the spending cuts didn't happen.

The 1990 Bush deal is the best example of this happening.
The promise:

In October of 1990, Pres. George H. W. Bush agreed to a five-year, $137 billion tax increase. In exchange, House speaker Tom Foley (D., Wash.) and Senate majority leader George Mitchell (D., Me.) promised to cut spending by $274 billion over the FY1991–1995 period. In total, this $2-for-$1 deal was supposed to cut the budget deficit by $411 billion over this budget window.

Reality:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected before the deal that 1991–1995 spending would total $7.07 trillion. In fact, total spending for this period was $7.09 trillion. In other words, in return for agreeing to tax hikes, Republicans got $22 billion in extra spending rather than the promised $274 billion in cuts. This was despite the fact that there was another “spending cut” deal in 1993 — the Clinton tax-increase budget.

You can read the rest at the link below. But the key points are already quoted.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269397/read-my-lips-won-t-happen-again-ryan-ellis

 

[Farang]

If your argument is that long-term spending cut agreements never pan out..

then immediate tax increases are the only solution to the deficit.

 

[Rainsford]

Refusing to compromise because it might not have worked in the past, with different people involved, seems pretty dumb to me. Particularly when pretending they are the only party in government doesn't seem to be working all that well.

I'm not sure you can blame Democrats for not cutting spending either. Part of the problem now, and in the past, is that Republicans want to cut Democratic spending, and Democrats want to cut Republican spending (or no spending), and nobody is willing to compromise.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I think we all already know why.

 

[Paul98]

If you want to know why Republicans refuse to look at raising taxes then here is your answer.

Twice in the past Republicans struck a deal with the Democrats that involved immediate tax increases in return for long term spending cuts and BOTH times the spending cuts didn't happen.

The 1990 Bush deal is the best example of this happening.
The promise:

Reality:

You can read the rest at the link below. But the key points are already quoted.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/269397/read-my-lips-won-t-happen-again-ryan-ellis

You compared the CBO projection before the deal to the actual spending in that time period. Did the cuts actually happen? Was there other spending increases or something that happened that made a need for spending increases? If they didn't do those 274b in spending cuts would they have spent that much more over that period of time?

How does this compare to the bush tax cuts that were set to expire?

 

[Jhhnn]

PJ links the NRO, who'll say anything to maintain ultra low taxes at the top, anything at all.

They're phonies, and their fellow travelers are equally as phony-

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/phony-deficit-hawks/

 

[Doppel]

I wonder if OP realizes that Bush Sr oversaw the first $1T federal budget and Bush junior oversaw the first $2T and $3T budgets. But still in his head somewhere maintains the idea that Republicans care about constrained spending.

 

[ProfJohn]

I wonder if Doppel realizes that it was actually Obama who signed the first $3 trillion budget.

Or that Obama has raised spending by $800 billion in just 3 years. (It took Bush 6 years to do that)

Seriously, how can you even start to question GOP spending after what Obama has done?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

How was funding for the two wars established again and by whom? Last I saw I think it was 1/6 of defense spending was on Afghanistan.

Should also point out the public is overwhelmingly in favor of ending subsidies to industries such as big oil. But yes it's all the left's fault.

 

[Doppel]

I wonder if Doppel realizes that it was actually Obama who signed the first $3 trillion budget.

Or that Obama has raised spending by $800 billion in just 3 years. (It took Bush 6 years to do that)

Seriously, how can you even start to question GOP spending after what Obama has done?

You should think before posting:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-02/04/content_6440819.htm
http://www.neilrogers.com/news/articles/2008020401.html

And some math skills FTW. $800B it's a matter of scale. $800B is less a percent when you start at $3T than when you start at $1T.

But you know that already, you just don't care.

Until you realize that Republicans and Democrats are different sides of the same coin you'll spin your wheels and get broadsided by such factoids as what I've just given, torpedoing your perspectives.

I don't have to defend Obama because I don't need to, want to, nor is he even defensible, but you still defend Republicans. Because you've not yet evolved your understanding of how they are no different than democrats on the important issues.

 

[Craig234]

This sounds like typical PJ-parroted NRO propaganda.

What does it actually contribute to any solution? Nothing.

It's just 'attack the ones who represent the public interest over the ultra wealthy' for political points.

The normal pattern is to cherry pick (at best, invent at worst) points to create a false attack story. They get debunked over and over, is it worth the bother. Hard to see why.

I couldn't care less 'why Republicans refuse to trade' whatever. The question is, what policies are good now (raise the debt cap to pay our bills, balanced spending cuts and tax increases on the top who have taken so much since Reagan) - things that will help the economy, so Republicans oppose them trying to help their chances in 2012, looking for political openings to justify it. "We're screwing you to help us in 2012" doesn't work; so let's try "those Democrats are untrustworthy, so we just CAN'T make any deals".

Hey, sounds like the thread topic. Lot of hot air very like misrepresenting the history.

 

[Craig234]

I wonder if Doppel realizes that it was actually Obama who signed the first $3 trillion budget.

Or that Obama has raised spending by $800 billion in just 3 years. (It took Bush 6 years to do that)

Seriously, how can you even start to question GOP spending after what Obama has done?

"The new captain of this ship sucks. All he has done is not go anywhere having everyone do 'emergency water bailing' to keep the ship from sinking after the last captain drag raced into an iceberg. How can you even COMPARE the new captain to the last one, when he's done so crappy? I say, get the old captain back!"

 

[ProfJohn]

You should think before posting:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-02/04/content_6440819.htm
http://www.neilrogers.com/news/articles/2008020401.html

And some math skills FTW. $800B it's a matter of scale. $800B is less a percent when you start at $3T than when you start at $1T.

I hope you realize that Bush didn't sign that $3 trillion budget because Democrats never voted on it and instead waited for Obama to take office to pass a budget.

Also, the actual budget for FY 2009 was $3.5 trillion.

So you bitch about Bush's $3 trillion budget, but are going to give a pass to Obama's $3.5 trillion budget?

 

[ProfJohn]

This sounds like typical PJ-parroted NRO propaganda.

Is the information in the NRO false?

Or are you attacking the messenger because you don't like the message?

 

[IronWing]

Seriously, how can you even start to question GOP spending after what Obama has done?

Sometime's your schtick is even dumb by the standards we've come to judge you by. The GOP has no credibility on spending issues and never has. None. The GOP is the party of deficits. The only consistent policies actually implemented by the GOP wrt to spending and revenues since 1981 have been to reduce tax rates on the rich and to increase military spending. When it comes to rhetoric on deficits and spending the GOP is a party of pathological liars.

 

[Craig234]

Is the information in the NRO false?

Or are you attacking the messenger because you don't like the message?

Propaganda is basically twisting a nugget of truth into a lie. For examples, see the last 100 posts I made exposing your propaganda doing that.

There's even a little bit in your post above - YOU'RE the one 'attacking the messenger because you don't like the truth'. Trying to imply my dislike of NRO isn't for their lying.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Once again a post on politics not policy.

 

[Craig234]

I hope you realize that Bush didn't sign that $3 trillion budget because Democrats never voted on it and instead waited for Obama to take office to pass a budget.

Also, the actual budget for FY 2009 was $3.5 trillion.

So you bitch about Bush's $3 trillion budget, but are going to give a pass to Obama's $3.5 trillion budget?

Bush turned a peacetime surplus into a massive deficit in wartime. Remember:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros,464/

Obama inherited the biggest economic crash in 75 years; the crash needs deficit spending to get out of.

So, the situations they had were very different - something you are clueless about.

Why don't you put up a chart of what happened to the deficit under Clinton and under Bush, for comparison; better yet, go back before Clinton to Reagan - and earlier.

Oh, look at that - the deficit is entirely a Republican creature before this crash.

So, the score is: 225 years of American history showing the Republicans since Reagan are the historic deficit creators, outside of wartime; that counts for nothing.

Obama has high deficits temporarily during economic recovery from the biggest crash in 75 years he inherited - clearly Democrats are the deficit lovers, and Republicans hate them.

On to your next propaganda.

 

[Doppel]

I hope you realize that Bush didn't sign that $3 trillion budget because Democrats never voted on it and instead waited for Obama to take office to pass a budget.

Also, the actual budget for FY 2009 was $3.5 trillion.

So you bitch about Bush's $3 trillion budget, but are going to give a pass to Obama's $3.5 trillion budget?

The whole point is that republicans are sh*t with money. Like i said, I won't defend Obama because democrats are, too. It's this false dichotomy you maintain that is humorous; the idea that Republicans somehow have some history of caring about fiscal balance or cutting spending. They have no contemporary history of anything like that at all.

 

[davmat787]

Until you realize that Republicans and Democrats are different sides of the same coin you'll spin your wheels and get broadsided by such factoids as what I've just given, torpedoing your perspectives.

I don't have to defend Obama because I don't need to, want to, nor is he even defensible, but you still defend Republicans. Because you've not yet evolved your understanding of how they are no different than democrats on the important issues.

Agreed 100%. Why only hold one party accountable when both are at fault for the many messes we are faced with today? Partisan douchebaggery just leads to raging at each other instead of true accountability. Would not surprise me in the least if behind closed doors the R's and D's laugh it up at the partisan hacks who deflect the attention away from them so they can continue their shenanigans.

Again, why limit yourself to half the cup of rage when you can have the whole mug?

 

[Doppel]

Again, why limit yourself to half the cup of rage when you can have the whole mug?

Exactly!

I'm sure they do laugh behind closed doors, it's just theater for the proles. Remember them bickering over that $61B a few months back as if the world depended on it, it was budgetary noise.

 

[Zorkorist]

How was funding for the two wars established again and by whom? Last I saw I think it was 1/6 of defense spending was on Afghanistan.

Should also point out the public is overwhelmingly in favor of ending subsidies to industries such as big oil. But yes it's all the left's fault.

While they are willing to continue to watch a Government spend itself into oblivion?

You have blinders on, and the people that care are against ALL Government spending.

-John

 

[Anarchist420]

They shouldn't increase taxes, but they should slash expenditures.

 

[a777pilot]

No tax hikes!

If the Democrats don't agree to immediate and deep cuts, then shut the government down! Bring the country to its knees......and its senses.

 

[IronWing]

No tax hikes!

If the Democrats don't agree to immediate and deep cuts, then shut the government down! Bring the country to its knees......and its senses.

Hint: the money is already spent. The congressional Republicans already passed the budget. Now they are lying to you. Failure to raise the debt limit doesn't affect spending one bit as the funds have already been appropriated and the government would be able to legally continue to operate and spend the funds appropriated. A default would merely screw our creditors (and destroy the global economy) but at least the Republicans would get in a sound bite or two.