Recall the Democrats’ original theory of the case: Sequestration was supposed to be so threatening that Republicans would agree to a budget deal that included tax increases rather than permit it to happen. That theory was wrong. The follow-up theory was that the actual pain caused by sequestration would be so great that it would, in a matter of months, push the two sides to agree to a deal. Democrats just proved that theory wrong, too.
It is worth noting how different the Democrats’ approach to sequestration has been to the GOP’s approach to, well, everything. Over the past five years, Republicans have repeatedly accepted short-term political pain to win the leverage necessary for long-term policy gain. That’s the governing political principle behind their threats to shut down the government, breach the debt ceiling, and, for that matter, accept sequestration. Today, Democrats showed they’re not willing to accept even a bit of short-term pain for leverage on sequestration. They played a game of chicken with the Republicans, and they lost. Badly.
Deficit Reduction.
So the Republicans should be so proud now. They have been able to "save" themselves and travelers from some minor inconveniences while allowing cuts to the military, to cancer patients, to Head Start and numerous other individuals who do not have political clout to get special favors.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
They aren't cuts. They are reductions in the amount of growth of the budget. Check out baseline budgeting and start vetting your liberal echo chamber sources.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Something the Dog Said wrote: A rising economy will do more to reduce the deficit than any attempts at deep and rapid cuts to reduce the deficit. Yes, the deficit must be reduced but drastic attempts to do so with no regard to improving the economy first is not a sound policy. Clinton showed the way in reducing the enormous deficits that he inherited from Reagan, that a combination of spending cuts with increased revenues is the best way to improve the economy while reducing the deficit.
So now you are trying to tell us that Reagan reduced taxes? That can't be true, a few short months ago you were telling us that he raised taxes by more than Obama has - and you were right, he did. The tax rates to pay for Social Security and Medicare were raised, the tax on a gallon of fuel was raised as a "deficit reduction" measure among numerous other taxes that were increased. What Reagan did with income taxes was revenue neutral. He lowered rates and expanded what was subject to being taxed. One can look at the history of total federal revenues as a percentage of GDP to see that this is true. There was barely any change in federal revenue expressed as a percentage of GDP as a result of all the tax rate changes.
Something else you need to remember. When Reagan left office the GDP of the Union had grown by 83% during the 8 years of his administration. Clinton? 66%. Bush? 44%. Obama thus far? 8%. You can check those figures by looking at the history of the GDP of the United States if you want to check them. Bottom line is that Obama's policies are bad for economic growth. The GDP of the Union grew over 20% in the first five years of FDR's administration and he stared his presidency at the height of the Great Depression. Surely, as bad as the situation was when Obama stepped in it wasn't as bad as when FDR took over the reins. Even you would have to agree with that, wouldn't you?
Something the Dog Said wrote: Nope, they are cuts. Tell your "talking points" to the cancer patients who are unable to get their meds necessary to treat their cancer.
It is just like elementary schools who choose to cut the most high profile acitivities like sports and extracurriculars over limiting teacher raises or payments into PERA. Were you always this gullible?
Compare the growth of the federal budget over the last 20 years. Rising much faster than population and inflation, where has all that extra money been spent?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Something the Dog Said wrote: A rising economy will do more to reduce the deficit than any attempts at deep and rapid cuts to reduce the deficit. Yes, the deficit must be reduced but drastic attempts to do so with no regard to improving the economy first is not a sound policy. Clinton showed the way in reducing the enormous deficits that he inherited from Reagan, that a combination of spending cuts with increased revenues is the best way to improve the economy while reducing the deficit.
So now you are trying to tell us that Reagan reduced taxes? That can't be true, a few short months ago you were telling us that he raised taxes by more than Obama has - and you were right, he did. The tax rates to pay for Social Security and Medicare were raised, the tax on a gallon of fuel was raised as a "deficit reduction" measure among numerous other taxes that were increased. What Reagan did with income taxes was revenue neutral. He lowered rates and expanded what was subject to being taxed. One can look at the history of total federal revenues as a percentage of GDP to see that this is true. There was barely any change in federal revenue expressed as a percentage of GDP as a result of all the tax rate changes.
Something else you need to remember. When Reagan left office the GDP of the Union had grown by 83% during the 8 years of his administration. Clinton? 66%. Bush? 44%. Obama thus far? 8%. You can check those figures by looking at the history of the GDP of the United States if you want to check them. Bottom line is that Obama's policies are bad for economic growth. The GDP of the Union grew over 20% in the first five years of FDR's administration and he stared his presidency at the height of the Great Depression. Surely, as bad as the situation was when Obama stepped in it wasn't as bad as when FDR took over the reins. Even you would have to agree with that, wouldn't you?
Of course I have not made any such statement that Reagan reduced taxes. Why do you insist on fabricating lies then making straw man arguments? Why not be honest? Reagan repeatedly raised taxes, primarily on the middle class while at the same time creating record deficit spending. Of course his economic plan was not even close to being revenue neutral, particularly in his war against the middle class. He cut the top rates for the wealthiest while increasing tax burdens on the middle class by raising gas taxes, payroll taxes, and raised federal income tax rates on those making less than $50,000.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: Nope, they are cuts. Tell your "talking points" to the cancer patients who are unable to get their meds necessary to treat their cancer.
It is just like elementary schools who choose to cut the most high profile acitivities like sports and extracurriculars over limiting teacher raises or payments into PERA. Were you always this gullible?
Compare the growth of the federal budget over the last 20 years. Rising much faster than population and inflation, where has all that extra money been spent?
I did not know that elementary schools had high profile activities.
I do remember municipalities that start with police, fire and trash so that if you do not give them more money you will be murdered while you are burning to death as you wallow in filth.
You and your talking points. Reagan raised taxes? He wasn't a dictator he negotiated with a Dem Congress unlike Barack who can't even negotiate with a Dem Senate.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: You and your talking points. Reagan raised taxes? He wasn't a dictator he negotiated with a Dem Congress unlike Barack who can't even negotiate with a Dem Senate.
Yeah, that's deflecting 'em...
Why yes, as a matter of fact, Reagan raised taxes ELEVEN (11) times while he was in office... and in 7 of the 8 years he was in office. And contrary to GOTP mythology, he nearly tripled the federal deficit...roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century.
And when you have a jump to 10.8% unemployment to PROVE how well it [didn't] work, I still don't understand the sainthood that the right-wing still wants to bestow on him.
It is just like elementary schools who choose to cut the most high profile acitivities like sports and extracurriculars over limiting teacher raises or payments into PERA. Were you always this gullible?
