Republicans: Fiscal conservatives vs. tax-cutters

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Two elements within the Republican party, the fiscal conservative budget-balancers and the tax-cutting supply-siders, are fighting it out.



Bush is out campaigning against other Republicans like George Voinovich in Ohio. Other conservatives have been running ads against Republicans Voinovich and Olympia Snowe in Maine because they oppose Bush's tax-cutting plans:
Quote:

PRESIDENT BUSH COURAGEOUSLY LED THE FORCES OF FREEDOM.



BUT SOME SO-CALLED "ALLIES" LIKE FRANCE STOOD IN THE WAY.



AT HOME, PRESIDENT BUSH HAS PROPOSED BOLD JOB-CREATING TAX CUTS TO BOOST OUR ECONOMY.



BUT SOME SO-CALLED REPUBLICANS LIKE GEORGE VOINOVICH STAND IN THE WAY.



Comparing other Republicans to the French? That's about as low as you can go right now.



Some questions:



1. Do tax cuts "pay for themselves" by stimulating the economy to bring in enough new revenue to offset the revenue lost by the tax cuts?



2. Are deficits bad? Should we stay in at least rough balance, or does it not matter?



3. Must tax cuts necessarily benefit the wealthy more than the middle class?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    I just want to say that as a Democrat, I really hate to see this kind of infighting among Republicans. Especially when the president is fighting against those moderates in his party who represent those all-important swing-votes.

  • Reply 2 of 28
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    I just want to say that as a Democrat, I really hate to see this kind of infighting among Republicans. Especially when the president is fighting against those moderates in his party who represent those all-important swing-votes.





    lol
  • Reply 3 of 28
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,937member
    " 1. Do tax cuts "pay for themselves" by stimulating the economy to bring in enough new revenue to offset the revenue lost by the tax cuts?



    2. Are deficits bad? Should we stay in at least rough balance, or does it not matter?



    3. Must tax cuts necessarily benefit the wealthy more than the middle class"





    1. Yes, if done correctly. For the record though, we need more of a tax revolution than a tax cut. Say it with me: Flat Tax



    2. I really don't think they do in reality.



    3. No. But, what is interesting is that when Reagan lowered the top bracket from 75% to 28% (approximately) the economy soared within two years. Revenue doubled. But, we had deficits. It is clear that since revenue went up, we had far more spending.



    I'm an advocate of a massively reduced federal income tax with no deductions. Zero. Everyone pays 5%...period. The economy would skyrocket, millions of man hours would be gained because paperwork would be reduced. Take the entire personal income tax system and burn it. There will be some reduced revenue from this. This must be dealt with by reducing spending...by at least 25%.
  • Reply 4 of 28
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    For the record though, we need more of a tax revolution than a tax cut.



    I don't know if a flat tax would do it, but I'm in agreement that we need for a tax revolution.



    I've always been intrigued with a flat tax. It seems just, if done properly. As the system stands right now, it's a self-perpetuating misery. Bad for everyone that can't afford a good (dishonest?) accountant.
  • Reply 5 of 28
    Voinovich and Snowe really aren't fiscal conservatives. McCain is more of one than they are. Fiscal conservatives aren't just concerned with balancing the budget. They also look for ways to cut government spending. Voinovich and Snowe aren't big on cutting spending so it's a misnomer to call them fiscal conservatives.
  • Reply 6 of 28
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001



    I'm an advocate of a massively reduced federal income tax with no deductions. Zero. Everyone pays 5%...period. The economy would skyrocket, millions of man hours would be gained because paperwork would be reduced. Take the entire personal income tax system and burn it. There will be some reduced revenue from this. This must be dealt with by reducing spending...by at least 25%.






    oh my god... the sky is falling... who would employ the paper pushers.... who? who?



    oh, right, no one....



    and what of the government workers who are laid off? who? who? (i am an owl by the way )



    oh, right, no one...



    yeah killing jobs, reducing funding of government initiatives and cutting taxes is a really good way to bring about fiscal solvency let alone a sparkling economy...



    you cant run an engine on no fuel, and without an engine a car wont... go....



    unless we revert to some sort of articles of confederation national government taxes are necessary for everything that you see around you... and 5% wont cut it...
  • Reply 7 of 28
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    How about a progressive tax with all the loopholes and overseas tax shelters closed?



    As far as the "this tax cut is for the rich" crap that's all a partisan red-herring. The top 5% pay over 50% of the taxes. I don't mind that, but to begrudge the rich their wealth is just stupid. Close the loopholes and overseas tax shelters and you can move back the progressive tax rates. And cut useless spending and pork.



    Small government good.



    Thank you, and good night.
  • Reply 8 of 28
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    How about a progressive tax with all the loopholes and overseas tax shelters closed?



    As far as the "this tax cut is for the rich" crap that's all a partisan red-herring. The top 5% pay over 50% of the taxes. I don't mind that, but to begrudge the rich their wealth is just stupid. Close the loopholes and overseas tax shelters and you can move back the progressive tax rates. And cut useless spending and pork.



    Small government good.



    Thank you, and good night.




    and the top 10% hold 90% of the wealth... so that figure makes some sense...



    small government is only good if you live in a state that has money. period.
  • Reply 9 of 28
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    For the record though, we need more of a tax revolution than a tax cut. Say it with me: Flat Tax.



    SDW, bunge, and me all agree on this one. I'm not sure why tax reform isn't an issue right now. Remember 1996 when everyone was falling all over themselves over tax reform? Even Gephardt had a flat tax. I think they just really don't want tax reform. None of them.



    But I think it is exactly what Democrats need to do. The last thing they want to do in 2004 is be in the position of simply saying "no" to Bush's tax cuts. So what do they do? Tax reform. Flat tax. Simplified tax. Overhaul the code. Reform corporate taxes. Change the payroll tax. There are lots of possibilities. Just so they're not simply saying "no Bush tax cuts."



    I think a flat tax is fine, as long as (you guessed it) it doesn't decrease net taxes on the rich and increase them on the poor. We should be going in the other direction.
  • Reply 10 of 28
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    Voinovich and Snowe really aren't fiscal conservatives. McCain is more of one than they are. Fiscal conservatives aren't just concerned with balancing the budget. They also look for ways to cut government spending. Voinovich and Snowe aren't big on cutting spending so it's a misnomer to call them fiscal conservatives.



    I guess that depends on your definition of fiscal conservative. I get a little tired of people calling tax-cutting supply-siders like Reagan and Bush "fiscal conservatives." There's nothing at all conservative about their budgeting.



    If it's an option between 1. cutting and taxes and 2. cutting taxes and cutting spending, sure, a fiscal conservative will choose option 2. But that's not the decision here. The decision here is really between: 1. cutting taxes and increasing the deficit and 2. not cutting taxes and not increasing the deficit. The fiscal conservative will choose 2. over 1.
  • Reply 11 of 28
    As the saying goes, Democrats tax and spend, Republicans borrow and spend. The sort of fiscally conservative politics that some people, mostly Republicans like to play up rhetorically almost always gets trumped by the politics of pork. Maybe we need a Jewish-Muslim Congress so that we can get a Halal-Kosher budget.



    Plus the American people don't give a **** about their govt wasting money. As long as they continue to be happy with their representatives provided that their representatives are wasting that money in their district then the political incentive for waste will insure it sticks around as policy. I mean people go vote in someone and go bitch to someone when they don't get what they want or get jobs or projects in their district. They bitch when they don't get a turn at the trough, rather than bitching when their congressfücker doesn't do the right thing. I'm not sure how much you can blame people for that sort of narrow self-interest but it does exist and drive the system. Look at military base closings. That shit was a no-brainer and it still got chopped at the knees after a decade because it was a political enema for anyone whose district was gonna lose bases. Even though those districts that did get sauced and tossed all did bueno post-pork.



    Beyond that, cutting spending in a substantive way is not quite as easy as people want to make it out to be. All but a very few politicos are unwilling to touch Social Security and Medicare in a substantive way because it is not good politics. The military budget is also not gonna go down anytime soon because of politics. Our $300 billion in annual interest payments is also untouchable, unless of course we want to avoid paying it and simply borrow to pay it so that we can owe even more next year. Add up Social Security, Defense, Medicare, Interest and you've taken up a significant portion of the budget right there with political untouchables. No doubt there is lots of waste and lots of little waste. But working with the big figures is not quite as easy as some make it out to be.
  • Reply 12 of 28
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    I guess that depends on your definition of fiscal conservative. I get a little tired of people calling tax-cutting supply-siders like Reagan and Bush "fiscal conservatives."



    That's why I mentioned McCain and not Bush or Reagan. McCain isn't a supply-sider. Bush and Reagan are. All three could probably agree on how big the government should be but when push comes to shove Bush and Reagan are more committed to lower taxes. McCain's more committed to a balanced budget.
  • Reply 13 of 28
    trick falltrick fall Posts: 1,271member
    From where I'm looking the two great myths of American politics are that Republicans are fiscally responsible and good for the economy.
  • Reply 14 of 28
    The home mortgage interest deduction is the reason why you'll never see a flat tax. I'm 110% behind the idea of a flat tax but I just don't see it happening.
  • Reply 15 of 28
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    The home mortgage interest deduction is the reason why you'll never see a flat tax. I'm 110% behind the idea of a flat tax but I just don't see it happening.



    Really I don't see the harm of home mortgage interest deductions. It is an incentive for home ownership which brings along with it many aspects of sales which stimulate the economy. If one was to move into their own home they may do work to it such as landscaping, window treatments, new lawn mower, new furnature, washer and dryer, refrigerator, etc. If people own a home they are likely to pay in higher property tax than their apartment has to pay. If they pay in higher property taxes the local authorities do better on their own without as much need for state and federal assistance. Earlier the items I listed that a home owner might purchase all lend to sales which maintain or create new jobs. The home mortgage interest deduction has a benefit larger than the sum of it's revenue.



    Supply Side!



    Fellowship
  • Reply 16 of 28
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,393member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001





    1. Yes, if done correctly. For the record though, we need more of a tax revolution than a tax cut. Say it with me: Flat Tax







    Flat Tax!
  • Reply 17 of 28
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

    The home mortgage interest deduction is the reason why you'll never see a flat tax. I'm 110% behind the idea of a flat tax but I just don't see it happening.



    Many of the flat tax proposals of 1996 retained that deduction. One of those could get through.
  • Reply 18 of 28
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath

    Beyond that, cutting spending in a substantive way is not quite as easy as people want to make it out to be. All but a very few politicos are unwilling to touch Social Security and Medicare in a substantive way because it is not good politics. The military budget is also not gonna go down anytime soon because of politics. Our $300 billion in annual interest payments is also untouchable, unless of course we want to avoid paying it and simply borrow to pay it so that we can owe even more next year. Add up Social Security, Defense, Medicare, Interest and you've taken up a significant portion of the budget right there with political untouchables. No doubt there is lots of waste and lots of little waste. But working with the big figures is not quite as easy as some make it out to be.



  • Reply 19 of 28
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    gah! Don't show me that it makes me cringe.



    Since national defense is essentially the only thing the government is required to do per the Constitution I don't mind seeing that huge chunk, wouldn't mind seeing it bigger.



    I wonder what the $40b in "Health" is and why it's not in the $217b in Medicare.



    $30b in unemployment? Shikes.
  • Reply 20 of 28
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,937member
    Quote:

    "yeah killing jobs, reducing funding of government initiatives and cutting taxes is a really good way to bring about fiscal solvency let alone a sparkling economy...



    you cant run an engine on no fuel, and without an engine a car wont... go....



    unless we revert to some sort of articles of confederation national government taxes are necessary for everything that you see around you... and 5% wont cut it..."



    and then



    Quote:

    small government is only good if you live in a state that has money. period.



    The first part is really flawed in its own right. First, being a liberal, you assume that the government creates posperity. It doesn't...it hinders it. And the engine you speak of...the problem is that the engine gets about 1 Mile per Gallon. It's an efficiency problem. That same engine also tries to pull everyone's train. So, it takes some of their power to pull the trains without as much. Problem is, the more it takes, the more fuel it needs. That's our government for you.



    Now, as far is 5% is concerned: That would be fair. You prbably don;t pay much more than that now. I paid about 10% this year, even though my bracket is 27%. Imgaine the reveue if we eliminated almost all cheating. Imagine the boost to the economy if people like me got to keep another 3,600 a year.



    Now the second part. Small government is good for everyone. Big government historically creates misery. This is historical fact.

    Oh, and BTW, every state has money to a degree. Well, exceot California I suppose.



    Your post is predicated on the fact that the federal government is responsible for everything around you. It's not. It gives very little money to local roads and school budgets and mom and pop boutiques. It doesn't build Wal-Marts and movie theatres and , and it shouldn't. I haven't seen too many cultural centers and YMCA's pop up because of federal funding. No, it's good at building train museums in towns where there are no trains (Altoona, PA), researching the sex life of salamanders and other fine endeavors. What it SHOULD do is defend our borders, protect and defend our natonal security abroad, maintain the infastructure, fund education equitably, and enforce laws that help the common good. It should NOT regulate our lives. It should NOT provide for our retirment by taking 12% of our paychecks very week.
Sign In or Register to comment.