In response to:

So What If Taxing Rich Hurts the Economy?

Fred1666 Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 9:27 AM
Why do both sides have such narrow arguments? Libs say the rich should pay their fair share. Conservatives insist that lower taxes bring more revenues. I think it is true that lib tax and economic policy is bad in the long run. Conservative policy is also unproven. There has always been more to economics that tax policy. I think Reagan's sucess had as much to do with the confidence he inspired as his policies. We balanced the budget in the 90s. Was it government policy or the hi-tech boom? The 2000s saw higher revenues under the Bush tax cuts which had more to do with the real estate boom. It was government policy that produced the boom and that same liberal redistribution policy of lending to people who could not afford to pay them.
h20skier2 Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 11:08 AM
The budget has not been balanced since 1957. Source: U.S. Treasury here -

Tacitus X Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 11:00 AM
According to the Treasury Department, the national debt increased every year of the Clinton presidency. The "Clinton surplus" or "balanced budget" myths were based on crooked government accounting where money was robbed from Social Security to pay down the "public debt," but not enough to make up for the even higher amounts being added to the overall national debt. It's like claiming you're making money when you go on a spending spree and pay the credit card tab by stealing your mother's retirement savings.
RufusTFirefly Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 10:14 AM
Reagan raised taxes when he needed revenue. Raised 11 times in all!
rman859 Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 10:17 AM
Sounds like you're "Fair Share" is ZERO
BK22 Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 10:37 AM
Except none exceeded his largest tax cut in our history......and it depends what was cut.
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 10:38 AM
And all of Reagan's tax increases COMBINED amounted to less than 20% of his total tax CUTS. In fact, most of thiose tax "raises" were repeal of smaller tax cuts whose distortions to economic activity (by setting disparate tax rates) outweighed their benefit. Those attempting to protray Reagan as a tax hiker are either incredibly ignorant or completely dishonest ... or both. Which are you?
Scrap Iron in Texas Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 10:59 AM
What tax RATES were raised under Reagan?
I keep hearing that, but I have not been shown it>

And the malarkey about a balanced budget in the 90's is just that, malarkey.
There has ALWAYS been a yearly budget deficit since 1957.
That can be confirmed at

Tacitus X Wrote: Nov 22, 2012 11:01 AM
He did so in return for the Dims' promises to cut spending (never happened). Sound familiar?
Consider this headline from a Reuters article in The Huffington Post: "Raising Taxes on Rich Won't Hurt Economic Growth, CBO Says."

But the first paragraph refutes the headline: "Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans would not hurt U.S. economic growth much (emphasis added) in 2013 ..." The CBO did not say, as the headline suggests, that raising taxes on the rich has no negative economic effect. In fact, the CBO actually said that extending the Bush-era rates for all would increase economic growth by 1.5 percent. If, however, the Bush era rates expired for the rich -- but...