Posted on 05/19/2011 12:35:34 PM PDT by Minus_The_Bear
Earlier this week, Tom Coburn quit the Gang of Six negotiations in the Senate, saying that the bipartisan working group on the budget wanted to go in a substantially different direction than Coburn would travel. Given that context, Coburn’s essay in today’s Washington Post prompts a question — just where exactly did the Gang of Six want to go? Coburn argues in his article that conservatives are going to have to swallow some tax hikes to get the spending cuts they want (via OTB):
Major facepalm.
Nonsense, Senator. This was the game all along, to make like the eight years of Reagan and the eight years of Bush never existed. They hiked up spending to astronomical levels on purpose so that taxes would have to be raised. They hiked up spending so that Reagan would have to go back on his tax cuts. They hiked up spending so that Bush I would have to raise taxes. Now they’re doing the same thing again. Increase spending so we’ll have to reverse tax cuts and increase taxes.
The government has more than enough revenue and has a ton of waste. The department of energy produces none and obstructs all. Eliminate it. The dept. of Agriculture has two buildings. Eliminate one or both. The dept. of the Interior should be slashed. The dept of Veterans Affairs should be rolled back into defense. Government land should be sold, subsidies cut.
There’s a beginning, Senator. And while you’re at it, sit in the Senate and deny all unanimous consents. There’s spending savings right there.
Static revenue models assume that people do not change their behavior when taxes go up or down. Yet, in spite of countless examples of the fallacy of such assumptions, they somehow still govern our elected representatives’ economic understanding.
No, I’m for abolishing income taxes, and going back to the time when the government was small enough to run from collecting tariffs. But good luck with that.
BTW, I notice you crap all over every Paln thread... Does minus_the_bear mean “get rid of Palin?”
IF THIS IS TRUE... then Coburn is dead to me.
I’ve never thought of Tom Coburn as a scumbag, so I will wait until this is verified/clarified before nailing down such a conclusion.
“Governments don't reduce deficits by raising taxes on the people; governments reduce deficits by controlling spending and stimulating new wealth.”-- Ronald Reagan
You seem to have a more basic confusion.
Regardless of whether it is "swallow" (ie., cave like a sissy) or "scream for" more taxes, it's totally unacceptable. Therefore, IF Coburn is saying he would go along ("swallow") ANY tax increases, THEN he is a scumbag.
I will, however, wait for verification/clarification of what Tom said/meant.
How about this... raise taxes on the half of households that don’t pay anything. It is about damn time those freeloaders paid their fair share.
What line of "no taxes"? I see them talk of low taxes, and I'm in favor of that, but the only people benefitting from "no taxes" are the freeloading deadbeats that make up the base of the democrat party.
Somebody has some serious dirt on him is my bet.Just like our boy arnold.
If you have a defeatist attitude, obviously your defeat is inevitable. I suppose many folks behind the iron curtain had your attitude back in 1985.
If you want less of something, tax it; if you want more, subsidize it. It's time to tax the poor.
I would accept higher taxes... if and only if an audit of the government shows that all waste has been cut, all useless programs have been cut, all foreign aid programs not required by treaty or by actual honor (i.e., Iraq) are cut, and all subsidies are cut. Then, if we still can’t balance the budget, yes, higher taxes are distateful but needed.
But after you cut things like Obamacare and the “African Men’s Genital Washing Instruction Program” (no, really, we’re spending tax dollars to teach men in Africa basic hygiene!), I really doubt we’ll be having problems with funding.
The Repub Senators ought ot pull a page out of the Dem playbook and promise to increase taxes, but first cut spending. Then welch after the Dems cut spending.
Did Coburn similarly argue when Obama increase spending by a trillion dolloar to give us this over a trilion dollar deficit that tax cuts were required to get the spending increases or do things only go the Dims way in his world?
Coburn please, go to hell.
Tax increases means you refuse to cut spending, period. Damn these fools.
There was a time that I really liked Coburn , now, not so much.
I didn’t read it that way... thank for pointing it out.
Suffice to say that Ronald Reagan is in his grave, still waiting for the $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in new taxes that Congress agreed to in the late 80's
This slimebucket may be a RINO, but he certainly does not inspire confidence and trust.
A Conservative he ain't!
In a free representative republic, where every citizen has rights and responsibilities, the "Fair Share" can NEVER be zero.
Otherwise it defines slavery of a different sort.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.