Republicans scared to death of a fiscal conservative

wwestern

http://www.examiner.com/article/johnson-campaign-has-had-enough-of-republican-ballot-shenanigans

webmost

I don't doubt it.

Amos Umwhat

I made a contribution to Johnson's campaign recently, the letter I received asking for the donation let us know we could contribute "up to the maximum of $2,600.00. My question is; how can Mr. Adelson declare he's willing to donate as much as 100 million dollars (according to the radio news report I heard) to unseat President Obama? Sounds a lot like class warfare, doesn't it?

beatnic

The Dems have a different way of handling these issues, usually behind locked doors.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/convention-vote-expected-to-be-unanimous-for-obama-134215.html

fla-gypsy

I am afraid a true fiscal conservative would never stand a chance when everyone found out their favorite cause was being cut

Amos Umwhat

fla-gypsy:

I am afraid a true fiscal conservative would never stand a chance when everyone found out their favorite cause was being cut

You hit that nail right on the head.

wwestern

Once you start letting government buy votes (rich and poor alike) politicians stop doing whats best for the country and start supporting their sponsors.

JDH

fla-gypsy:

I am afraid a true fiscal conservative would never stand a chance when everyone found out their favorite cause was being cut

As they have learned in Europe during The Great Recession, if you cut too much too quickly, unemployment goes up, and the deficits and debt gets worse because revenues go down. A true fiscal conservative realizes that the best way to create growth in this kind of economy is to moderately raise tax revenues and moderately cut spending, and provide a stable regulatory framework so that businesses can plan accordingly. Getting the private sector to grow is the key. Growth will proivide some of the revenues needed to pay down the debt, and moderate tax increases coupled with moderate budget cutting can provide the rest. All you have to do is re-examine the Clinton tax and regulatory approach, and remember that he had very low un-employment and a budget surplus when he left office. The taxes in place during his term did not prevent growth, but they did help pay off the huge debts that Reagan and Bush Sr. had racked up.

All this will require compromise from Congress, which is where the problem is.

wwestern

JDH:

fla-gypsy:

I am afraid a true fiscal conservative would never stand a chance when everyone found out their favorite cause was being cut

As they have learned in Europe during The Great Recession, if you cut too much too quickly, unemployment goes up, and the deficits and debt gets worse because revenues go down. A true fiscal conservative realizes that the best way to create growth in this kind of economy is to moderately raise tax revenues and moderately cut spending, and provide a stable regulatory framework so that businesses can plan accordingly. Getting the private sector to grow is the key. Growth will proivide some of the revenues needed to pay down the debt, and moderate tax increases coupled with moderate budget cutting can provide the rest. All you have to do is re-examine the Clinton tax and regulatory approach, and remember that he had very low un-employment and a budget surplus when he left office. The taxes in place during his term did not prevent growth, but they did help pay off the huge debts that Reagan and Bush Sr. had racked up.

All this will require compromise from Congress, which is where the problem is.

Raising taxes doesn't create revenue, it chases money away. As far as gradually cutting spending... that's like deciding it's time to shut off your cell phone to save money while the bank auctioneer is standing in front of your house.

The country is in a horrible way with debt right now. The blame falls on both sides of a failing two party system (Before you tell us how it's all the republicans fault JDH). The government takes in over 2 trillion in income taxes every year that's just income taxes. I'm no Dave Ramsey but I'd say we have a spending problem not an income problem.

JDH

wwestern:

JDH:

fla-gypsy:

I am afraid a true fiscal conservative would never stand a chance when everyone found out their favorite cause was being cut

As they have learned in Europe during The Great Recession, if you cut too much too quickly, unemployment goes up, and the deficits and debt gets worse because revenues go down. A true fiscal conservative realizes that the best way to create growth in this kind of economy is to moderately raise tax revenues and moderately cut spending, and provide a stable regulatory framework so that businesses can plan accordingly. Getting the private sector to grow is the key. Growth will proivide some of the revenues needed to pay down the debt, and moderate tax increases coupled with moderate budget cutting can provide the rest. All you have to do is re-examine the Clinton tax and regulatory approach, and remember that he had very low un-employment and a budget surplus when he left office. The taxes in place during his term did not prevent growth, but they did help pay off the huge debts that Reagan and Bush Sr. had racked up.

All this will require compromise from Congress, which is where the problem is.

Raising taxes doesn't create revenue, it chases money away. As far as gradually cutting spending... that's like deciding it's time to shut off your cell phone to save money while the bank auctioneer is standing in front of your house.

The country is in a horrible way with debt right now. The blame falls on both sides of a failing two party system (Before you tell us how it's all the republicans fault JDH). The government takes in over 2 trillion in income taxes every year that's just income taxes. I'm no Dave Ramsey but I'd say we have a spending problem not an income problem.

Taxes do raise revenue. That's why we have raised taxes to pay for every single war in the history of the United States (including the Revolution), until GW Bush came into office. That isn't ideology or theory, it is just a simple fact. The only way to pay off the debt is to raise revenues and cut spending - and that's exactly what Clinton did. He raised taxes, cut spending, and he provided a stable regulatory environment, which allowed for economic growth, which raised revenues. It seems silly to me to cling to ideology and ignore the facts of what happened during the Clinton Administration.

It is true that we have a spending problem, but had the government not spent the monies it did in the early days of the Obama Administration, things would be much much worse than they are now. Besides, I find it odd that when Republicans (Reagan, Bush Sr., and GW) ran up huge debts, I didn't hear any complaints from Republicans about how the sky is gonna fall because of the huge debt. But now......

wwestern

Spooking a fragile economy with tax raises doesn't seem like a good idea to me, and if we have another downturn in the economy that will indeed hurt revenue. I think Clinton was pretty damn good! Although some of the fiasco should be contributed to some of the lending regulation that was introduced under his time in office, but I still think he's the best we've had in a LONG LONG LONG time.

Pretty well tired of hearing how the bailouts saved america. All it did was take the pain of bankruptcy away from the selected companies and redistribute it thoughtout the country in the form of national debt. Now the people who have made piss poor decisions are allowed a second chance when instead it should have been a boom of oppurtunity for smaller buisnesses to soak up market share. Lets take GM for example, they let the unions run amok and create labor costs that were unsustainable. Instead of bankruptcy, restructure, and bringing in fresh investors, the government bailed the company out kept their union buddies happy so they'll keep fund raising for them all at the expense of the tax payer.