Alan Simpson Calls GOP Refusal To Raise Revenue ‘Absolute Bullshit’

Maybe a government shut-down would be a good thing. Consider the one in Minnesota. 22,000 State workers with no pay check. Closings included the State Zoo, programs for the blind and visually impaired, the State Hot Line dealing with Medicaid and Medicare insurance, State Parks resulting in an Eagle Scout camping trip being interrupted....the list goes on. Maybe when enough people realize exactly what their tax dollars support at the Federal level they'll stop bitching about contributing a few dollars more or insist those who can contribute dig a little deeper in their pocket.



I wonder if the Reps who loudly cheer government shutdowns (like Teabag Tim Pawlenty) will like the results of voter backlash at the polls next year.


BTW, Minnesota's shutdown was caused by Reps refusing to raise taxes on the rich to cover Pawlenty's $5 billion deficit....
 
Actually, the base accusation - that the Republicans are against increasing revenues - is the real example of pasture cookies. The Republicans have nothing against increasing tax revenues. What they have a problem with is increasing tax rates to achieve that goal. The belief is that a strong economy will bring about increased revenues, and the idea of increasing taxes is counter-intuitive to stimulating a strong economy.

What the Republicans run on (though consistently fail to act on, since big government is what keeps them in power) is the ideal that a stable economy cannot come from the halls of government - it must come from the American businessman, entrepreneur, and workers who actually make up the economy, therefore letting the people keep more of their wealth will result in better economic environment for growth, which in turn leads to more revenues.

They also recognize the basic reality that John Maynard Keynes was a fucking moron, and out-of-control government spending causes far more economic problems than any "stimulus" those expenditures may provide.

Sadly, the Republicans are far more about giving lip service to these ideals than actually pursuing them. Though with the numbers of republican congress critters brought into their seats by the TEA party movement, we may be seeing a slight change in the disparity between Republican rhetoric and Republican actions.
 
Actually, the base accusation - that the Republicans are against increasing revenues - is the real example of pasture cookies. The Republicans have nothing against increasing tax revenues. What they have a problem with is increasing tax rates to achieve that goal. The belief is that a strong economy will bring about increased revenues, and the idea of increasing taxes is counter-intuitive to stimulating a strong economy. What the Republicans run on (though consistently fail to act on, since big government is what keeps them in power) is the ideal that a stable economy cannot come from the halls of government - it must come from the American businessman, entrepreneur, and workers who actually make up the economy, therefore letting the people keep more of their wealth will result in better economic environment for growth, which in turn leads to more revenues. They also recognize the basic reality that John Maynard Keynes was a fucking moron, and out-of-control government spending causes far more economic problems than any "stimulus" those expenditures may provide. Sadly, the Republicans are far more about giving lip service to these ideals than actually pursuing them. Though with the numbers of republican congress critters brought into their seats by the TEA party movement, we may be seeing a slight change in the disparity between Republican rhetoric and Republican actions.


The GOP has flatly refused to allow subsidies, tax cuts, corporate welfare and other perks of the rich and powerful to expire. It has nothing to do with tax rates.

Here's just one example, corporate welfare for Big Oil.


The royalty waiver program was established by Congress in 1995, when oil was selling for about $18 a barrel and drilling in deep water was seen as unprofitable without a subsidy.


Today, the subsidy continues.


The Government Accountability Office estimates that the deep-water waiver program could cost the Treasury $55 billion or more in lost revenue over the life of the leases, depending on the price of oil and gas and the performances of the wells.


Congress had originally intended to provide royalty relief only when oil prices were especially low.


But an Interior Department error in the drafting of contracts led the industry to argue against pegging the relief to oil prices.


Oil companies won a lawsuit last year requiring the government to pay back $2.1 billion in royalties from previous years, including about $240 million to BP.


So the Treasury has to pay oil companies to make huge profits.




http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/25/nation/la-na-oil-spill-subsidies-20100525
 
Actually, the base accusation - that the Republicans are against increasing revenues - is the real example of pasture cookies. The Republicans have nothing against increasing tax revenues. What they have a problem with is increasing tax rates to achieve that goal. The belief is that a strong economy will bring about increased revenues, and the idea of increasing taxes is counter-intuitive to stimulating a strong economy.

What the Republicans run on (though consistently fail to act on, since big government is what keeps them in power) is the ideal that a stable economy cannot come from the halls of government - it must come from the American businessman, entrepreneur, and workers who actually make up the economy, therefore letting the people keep more of their wealth will result in better economic environment for growth, which in turn leads to more revenues.

They also recognize the basic reality that John Maynard Keynes was a fucking moron, and out-of-control government spending causes far more economic problems than any "stimulus" those expenditures may provide.

Sadly, the Republicans are far more about giving lip service to these ideals than actually pursuing them. Though with the numbers of republican congress critters brought into their seats by the TEA party movement, we may be seeing a slight change in the disparity between Republican rhetoric and Republican actions.

Once again, your blunt common sense style of telling it like it is, prevails!
 
if you folks don't start taking this issue seriously none of us will have homes to go to......

Hey were not the ones crying "Waaaaaa, we can't have it all our own way so were gonna take our ball and go home! Waaaaa!"

Anyone who thinks the budget deficit is going to be addressed by spending cuts alone is a moron. It can't be done. The revenue side has to be addressed and if you are not willing to make compromises to that affect your a cry baby who needs to fucking grow up!
 
Actually, the base accusation - that the Republicans are against increasing revenues - is the real example of pasture cookies. The Republicans have nothing against increasing tax revenues. What they have a problem with is increasing tax rates to achieve that goal. The belief is that a strong economy will bring about increased revenues, and the idea of increasing taxes is counter-intuitive to stimulating a strong economy.

What the Republicans run on (though consistently fail to act on, since big government is what keeps them in power) is the ideal that a stable economy cannot come from the halls of government - it must come from the American businessman, entrepreneur, and workers who actually make up the economy, therefore letting the people keep more of their wealth will result in better economic environment for growth, which in turn leads to more revenues.

They also recognize the basic reality that John Maynard Keynes was a fucking moron, and out-of-control government spending causes far more economic problems than any "stimulus" those expenditures may provide.

Sadly, the Republicans are far more about giving lip service to these ideals than actually pursuing them. Though with the numbers of republican congress critters brought into their seats by the TEA party movement, we may be seeing a slight change in the disparity between Republican rhetoric and Republican actions.

Don't you think that Democrats have deeps seated ideological convictions that they believe whole heartedly in too? What your saying really is "Our convictions matter more than yours and therefore there is no reason we should compromise." (aka, waaa if we can't have it all our own way were going to take our ball home and not play anymore.).

The pain can't be all one way and it can't be all spending cuts on programs that benefit the middle class. The upper class will have to share some pain too and if they stay rigid and uncompromising in their convictions they will pay a harsh political price. Democrats have all ready made substantial and painful concessions while republicans have made none and stick to that tired old disproven notion that "Tax cuts for the rich, even in times of war benefit everyone.". That's the old Milo Minderbinder schtick of "What's good for us is what's good for everyone."

Get real man.
 
Hey were not the ones crying "Waaaaaa, we can't have it all our own way so were gonna take our ball and go home! Waaaaa!"

Anyone who thinks the budget deficit is going to be addressed by spending cuts alone is a moron. It can't be done. The revenue side has to be addressed and if you are not willing to make compromises to that affect your a cry baby who needs to fucking grow up!

/shrugs.....your comment was petulant and ignorant the first time you made it......did you think it would look more intelligent if you repeated it?......
 
Don't you think that Democrats have deeps seated ideological convictions that they believe whole heartedly in too? What your saying really is "Our convictions matter more than yours and therefore there is no reason we should compromise."

no, we're saying your convictions are really fucked up and the sooner we come to that conclusion the better off this country is going to be.........it isn't "we're going home", it's "we're sending YOU home"......that was the message of 2010, but you didn't seem to listen......thus, there will be 2012......
 
Actually, the base accusation - that the Republicans are against increasing revenues - is the real example of pasture cookies. The Republicans have nothing against increasing tax revenues. What they have a problem with is increasing tax rates to achieve that goal. The belief is that a strong economy will bring about increased revenues, and the idea of increasing taxes is counter-intuitive to stimulating a strong economy.

Lower tax rates don't help the economy. At this low level of taxation, you aren't even close to being able to see a benefit in revenue from cutting taxes.

What the Republicans run on (though consistently fail to act on, since big government is what keeps them in power)

HAHA! The government is bad! Get it?! Man do I love conservative humor.

is the ideal that a stable economy cannot come from the halls of government - it must come from the American businessman, entrepreneur, and workers who actually make up the economy, therefore letting the people keep more of their wealth will result in better economic environment for growth, which in turn leads to more revenues.

Yeah, I'm sure that the economy will all the sudden decide to start growing at the 10% or so a year necessary to balance the budget under current levels of taxation. There is all sorts of imaginary precedent for this.

They also recognize the basic reality that John Maynard Keynes was a fucking moron,

Nuh-uh!

and out-of-control government spending causes far more economic problems than any "stimulus" those expenditures may provide.

Why?

Sadly, the Republicans are far more about giving lip service to these ideals than actually pursuing them.

Because it's not possible to pursue them. They are ridiculous ideological fantasies utterly divorced from reality. Conservatives believe in an economy run on magic.

Though with the numbers of republican congress critters brought into their seats by the TEA party movement, we may be seeing a slight change in the disparity between Republican rhetoric and Republican actions.

Yes, we will see Republicans refusing to do anything because nothing that the teabaggers propose is any way realistic.
 
Actually, the base accusation - that the Republicans are against increasing revenues - is the real example of pasture cookies. The Republicans have nothing against increasing tax revenues.

As Bobby Kennedy Jr. says: "Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"

Former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson blasted his intransigent GOP colleagues on the Hill today for failing to reach a deal on the deficit. The blunt-talking co-chairman of President Obama’s bipartisan fiscal reform commission slammed Republicans for kowtowing to Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist


main-logo.png


What is the Taxpayer Protection Pledge?

In the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, candidates and incumbents solemnly bind themselves to oppose any and all tax increases. While ATR has the role of promoting and monitoring the Pledge, the Taxpayer Protection Pledge is actually made to a candidate's constituents, who are entitled to know where candidates stand before sending them to the capitol. Since the Pledge is a prerequisite for many voters, it is considered binding as long as an individual holds the office for which he or she signed the Pledge.

Since its rollout with the endorsement of President Reagan in 1986, the pledge has become de rigeur for Republicans seeking office, and is a necessity for Democrats running in Republican districts.

Read more: http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge-a2882#ixzz1RAKPFGWw
 
Hey were not the ones crying "Waaaaaa, we can't have it all our own way so were gonna take our ball and go home! Waaaaa!"

Anyone who thinks the budget deficit is going to be addressed by spending cuts alone is a moron. It can't be done. The revenue side has to be addressed and if you are not willing to make compromises to that affect your a cry baby who needs to fucking grow up!

You truly are an idiot. Do you even understand what a DEFICIT is? It is OUTSPENDING your REVENUE. It most certainly CAN be solved by cutting spending. As pointed out earlier in the thread, there is NO justification for the spending plans going forward. We can easily go back to 2006 spending levels (adjusted for inflation) and resolve the massive deficit issues.
 
Lower tax rates don't help the economy. At this low level of taxation, you aren't even close to being able to see a benefit in revenue from cutting taxes.

Cutting taxes here is not a good idea. Neither is raising tax rates. The better option is to do what Reagan did and eliminate the loopholes and deductions. The best thing we can do here is simplify the tax code. The elimination of the subsidy for the highly wasteful ethanol production is a good start. THAT is an example of what needs to be done.

Yeah, I'm sure that the economy will all the sudden decide to start growing at the 10% or so a year necessary to balance the budget under current levels of taxation. There is all sorts of imaginary precedent for this.

We don't need anywhere close to 10%. Thanks.


true... Keynes was not a moron. The morons are the ones that have warped Keynes philosophy into 'spending more is good (regardless of HOW it is spent)'
 
You truly are an idiot. Do you even understand what a DEFICIT is? It is OUTSPENDING your REVENUE. It most certainly CAN be solved by cutting spending. As pointed out earlier in the thread, there is NO justification for the spending plans going forward. We can easily go back to 2006 spending levels (adjusted for inflation) and resolve the massive deficit issues.
Waaaa! We can't have it all our own way! Waaa!
 
Back
Top