PDA

View Full Version : Quotes from the Experts on raising Taxes



Cigar
12-06-2012, 10:44 AM
THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Heritage, the go-to think tank for the Republican Party, argued that the tax increase would somehow lead to “higher deficits” and that it served as a “recipe for a recession.” The organization also predicted that the tax increase would “destroy jobs” and “undermine America’s international competitiveness.”

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): “The problem is not that we do not tax enough, it is that Government spends too much. The President has reverted to true form, that of a tax and spend, old-time Democrat. He has abandoned tens of millions of middle-class voters that trusted him. Raising taxes on the middle class is not patriotic, it is idiotic.” (From the Congressional Record on February 17th, 1993)

SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): ”Mr. President, taxpayers will adjust to these new taxes by shifting investments into ones that generate fewer taxes by working less and by taking fewer risks. The consequences will punish far more than just the wealthy. Economic growth will slow and fewer jobs will be created.” (From the Congressional Record on August 6th, 1993)

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): This package contains the largest tax increase in history, and promises deficit reduction. This package will not reduce the Federal debt, or even balance one annual budget for that matter. (From the Congressional Record on August 6th, 1993)

SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): Mr. President, I really do not think it takes a rocket scientist to know this bill will cost jobs. (From the Congressional Record on August 6th, 1993)

And there's many more: http://boldprogressives.org/flashback-republicans-predicted-clinton-tax-increase-on-rich-would-lead-to-a-recession/

As we now know, the Clinton tax hikes on the richest Americans did not result in a “recession.” They did not increase our deficits. Rather, the government was placed on a path to a surplus (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/05/the-three-best-charts-on-how-clintons-surpluses-became-bush-and-obamas-deficits/) and we had a strong economy that created 22.7 million jobs (http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2010/jul/25/sherrod-brown/sherrod-brown-touts-job-grown-during-clinton-presi/). Average weekly wages grew by 21 percent from the start of Clinton’s first term to the end of his second term. These wages only grew by 2 percent during George W. Bush’s two terms. This isn’t to say that tax increases on the rich necessarily create jobs, but the evidence shows that they do not harm the economy in the ways that Republicans are claiming.


Recall that every single Republican in both the House (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll406.xml) and the Senate (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00247) voted against the Clinton tax increase on the rich. As Republicans circle the wagons to protect the rich, we should remember how they made outlandish predictions in the 1990′s, and how their dire words are no more true now.

Chris
12-06-2012, 11:09 AM
THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Heritage, the go-to think tank for the Republican Party, argued that the tax increase would somehow lead to “higher deficits” and that it served as a “recipe for a recession.” The organization also predicted that the tax increase would “destroy jobs” and “undermine America’s international competitiveness.”

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER (R-OH): “The problem is not that we do not tax enough, it is that Government spends too much. The President has reverted to true form, that of a tax and spend, old-time Democrat. He has abandoned tens of millions of middle-class voters that trusted him. Raising taxes on the middle class is not patriotic, it is idiotic.” (From the Congressional Record on February 17th, 1993)

SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): ”Mr. President, taxpayers will adjust to these new taxes by shifting investments into ones that generate fewer taxes by working less and by taking fewer risks. The consequences will punish far more than just the wealthy. Economic growth will slow and fewer jobs will be created.” (From the Congressional Record on August 6th, 1993)

SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): This package contains the largest tax increase in history, and promises deficit reduction. This package will not reduce the Federal debt, or even balance one annual budget for that matter. (From the Congressional Record on August 6th, 1993)

SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): Mr. President, I really do not think it takes a rocket scientist to know this bill will cost jobs. (From the Congressional Record on August 6th, 1993)

And there's many more: http://boldprogressives.org/flashback-republicans-predicted-clinton-tax-increase-on-rich-would-lead-to-a-recession/


As we now know, the Clinton tax hikes on the richest Americans did not result in a “recession.” They did not increase our deficits. Rather, the government was placed on a path to a surplus (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/05/the-three-best-charts-on-how-clintons-surpluses-became-bush-and-obamas-deficits/) and we had a strong economy that created 22.7 million jobs (http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2010/jul/25/sherrod-brown/sherrod-brown-touts-job-grown-during-clinton-presi/). Average weekly wages grew by 21 percent from the start of Clinton’s first term to the end of his second term. These wages only grew by 2 percent during George W. Bush’s two terms. This isn’t to say that tax increases on the rich necessarily create jobs, but the evidence shows that they do not harm the economy in the ways that Republicans are claiming.


Recall that every single Republican in both the House (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll406.xml) and the Senate (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00247) voted against the Clinton tax increase on the rich. As Republicans circle the wagons to protect the rich, we should remember how they made outlandish predictions in the 1990′s, and how their dire words are no more true now.




The problem with historicists like yourself lies in the oversimplification of history in order to find supposed patterns in it.

corrocamino
12-06-2012, 11:14 AM
Well, there are always alternative oversimplifications.

Cigar
12-06-2012, 11:27 AM
The problem with historicists like yourself lies in the oversimplification of history in order to find supposed patterns in it.


So what quote are you disagreeing with?

Chris
12-06-2012, 11:27 AM
Well, there are always alternative oversimplifications.

Such as?

Chris
12-06-2012, 11:30 AM
So what quote are you disagreeing with?

I'm disagreeing with the part beginning "As we now know" for we do not know this historically. The Clinton Era differs dramatically from this.

truthmatters
12-06-2012, 12:00 PM
The problem with historicists like yourself lies in the oversimplification of history in order to find supposed patterns in it.

then why did 90% tax rates on he 1% not result in what you claim in our history?

Chris
12-06-2012, 12:09 PM
then why did 90% tax rates on he 1% not result in what you claim in our history?

What did I claim, matters? Did you understand it?

Cigar
12-06-2012, 01:20 PM
I'm disagreeing with the part beginning "As we now know" for we do not know this historically. The Clinton Era differs dramatically from this.



Ain't that the truth ... Bush wasn't handed a steaming pile of Shit when he took office.

Chris
12-06-2012, 01:37 PM
Ain't that the truth ... Bush wasn't handed a steaming pile of Shit when he took office.

Bush was bad for the economy, no doubt, Obama worse. More of the same.

Cigar
12-06-2012, 01:45 PM
Bush was bad for the economy, no doubt, Obama worse. More of the same.

A month after the election, President Barack Obama's approval ratings are at a level he hasn't seen for years, with contentious negotiations over the upcoming "fiscal cliff" so far not dampening his support.

Obama has an approval rating of 53 percent among registered voters, according to a poll released Thursday by Quinnipiac University -- the strongest approval level the university has measured since the summer of 2009.

Obama's disapproval rating of 40 percent makes the president's net approval rating the best in over a year.

"Nothing like winning an election to boost your job approval," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "President Barack Obama hasn't had a score this good since his 52-40 percent approval rating May 5, 2011, right after the death of Osama bin Laden."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/obama-approval-rating_n_2250788.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Chris
12-06-2012, 01:49 PM
Some people value popular opinion (when it goes their way) and others look to the economy.