You keep saying this, but you have not offered any evidence to support it. Pardon our goddamn skepticism. A logical fallacy-argumentum e silentio. Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. In this case, however, you are simply wrong. In 1835 Andrew Jackson, after running budget surpluses, paid of the National Debt of the United States.
Winston, I have asserted for quite some time that tax cuts are good for economic boosts to help get us out of recessions and that has been how tax cuts have been historically handled. That said, the Reagan years were the first time that the Republican party espoused the notion that making tax cuts permanent would create more stability in the economy. So after cutting taxes in 1982 to help dig out of the recession (a sound economic policy move, by the way) the Republicans decided to double-down and go for another round of tax cuts in 1986. We had experienced a few good years, which follows the historical trend for tax cuts (2-3 years), and needed to rescind the tax cuts instead of doubling down. This is the exact point in time where traditional wisdom and historical fact went out the window of a certain element of the Republican party and economic ideology took over. As a result we had the Savings and Loan Crisis in 1987, better known as Black Monday. Two years later, after sluggish growth, GHW Bush takes office and within 18 months he has to go back on his promise of no new taxes and raises taxes in order to balance the budget. If anything, the actions of GHW Bush were more responsible for the boom of the Clinton years. The Reagan tax cuts had not only worn out their welcome, they had reaked havoc in 1987 and put GHW Bush in the position of having no other choice, even at his own political peril, than to raise taxes. Your argument that Reagan's Tax Cuts were responsible for the Clinton years is Republican Party Urban Legend my friend. I agree with your point that there is a time and a place for both tax cuts and tax increases. As I said before the time for tax cuts is recessions. Tax cuts, aimed at all classes, do infuse the economy with liquidity and act as a stimulus. The problem is that when the tax cuts take effect, you essentially start the clock because you are then racing to ensure you can get the economy back on track, gdp growing again and unemployment under control before the benefits of those tax cuts turn to liabilities. In turn, the time for tax increases is after you've had tax cuts and it is time to rescind them. Listen, I am not a bleeding heart liberal who thinks that raising taxes is the only cure for budgetary problems, but they do, just like tax cuts, have a place in our economic model and can be useful if utilized correctly. I say all of this because now is the right time to raise taxes. Doubling down with more tax cuts would be disasterous. I am not being facetious when I say to you: show me evidence of democratic obstruction during the GWB years. I am not talking about blocking judicial appointments or cabinet appointements; that's happened since the dawn of American politics. I am talking about legislative obstruction like the Republicans have demonstrated, openly, versus Obama.
When did I say you could never pay the debt off? Learn to read, fucking seriously. I said taxation will never be the means. There are MANY factors that are into play and all of this is in reference to Obama's raise taxes on the rich plan which solves not a god damn thing. You cannot tax enough to pay down the debt and to say that taxing the rich will go towards paying down the debt is a fucking ploy and you have swallowed the hook. There are no methods in place currently to address any of the long term debt issues. We are spending out of control, we are offering more welfare, we have expanded a broken health care system, and we have not fixed the tax system. Hook Line Sinker
Pride, in order to balance the budget and pay down the debt we will have to cut spending and increase revenues. This is not even an argument any longer. Hell, Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), two of the most conservative Republican Senators, are on the record saying we cannot get our fiscal house in order without increasing revenues. I am sure they will start by closing loopholes and go from there but any one who is realistic knows that they cannot balance the budget without increasing revenues. Stop pretending that you know better.....you don't!
Tax increases aren't the only way to increase revenues. Understand this.. Seriously.. Unless you have me on file for saying I oppose increased taxes, WHICH I HAVE NEVER SAID, the STFU about this no argument bullshit. Let me state this very clearly for you. It is 100% stupid, idiotic, and an utter failure to INCREASE ANY taxes without reform (taxes & policy), spending cuts, a balanced budged and a fucking garuntee to reduce the debt. Any mention to raise taxes for the purpose of reduced debt is a ploy and not backed up by anything other than the shit stained TP they use to feed you their shit. Got it?
Learn to debate, fucking seriously. And you have utterly failed to support this claim. How do you think Jackson did it? We did this as recently as Bill Clinton. You don't know what you are talking about. A non-argument. You don't have a single clue as to what can and can't be done.
Let me state this clearly for you. It is a waste of time for me to debate with a fucking fencepost. Good day.
Clinton also cut spending. You don't know enough apparently. There was an entire package that Clinton had that Obama does not.
Do you? What guarantees are in the budget/polices to force extra taxation for debt reduction? There are none Skippy.
