Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Business

Noted Economist’s ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Solution: If We Return to Clinton Tax Rates, Let’s Return to Clinton Spending

Dec. 15, 2012 9:23am Becket Adams

flickr

Throughout this entire “fiscal cliff” ordeal, Democrats have insisted that all we need to do to reign in our ballooning deficit is to return to Clinton-era tax rates.

However, as George Mason University’s Veronique de Rugy notes, merely increasing the top marginal income tax rates on higher income earners will put only a tiny dent in our deficit. Moreover, it discourages productivity.

“Nobel laureate Ed Prescott, in his famous 2004 paper ‘Why Do Americans Work So Much More Than Europeans?‘ shows that workers spend considerably more hours working when marginal tax rates on their incomes are lower,” she explains. “So basically, over time people will reduce the number of hours of work, economic growth slows down, and less revenue is collected.”

“And then there’s the long run. In recent years, economists have shown that higher taxes may not dissuade current rich people from working, but they will hurt incentives for younger people to invest in education and career choices that would have made them the rich people of tomorrow,” she continues. “That too does not benefit future economic growth and tax revenue.”

You know what we’ll still have once revenues dry up? Bad spending habits.

“So how about we return to Clinton-era spending levels?” the noted economist asks.

No, seriously. It’s an honest question.“[I]t is true that the Clinton years saw economic growth, increasing median income, vanishing deficits and relative peace,” she explains. “Why doesn’t the president try to copy all Clinton-era policies? Because that would mean seriously cutting spending.”

She continues:

On Jan. 27, 1996, President Clinton proclaimed that “the era of big government is over, but we can’t go back to a time when our citizens were just left to fend for themselves.” He added, “So, again, last Tuesday, I asked Congress to join with me to make the cuts we agree on. Let’s give the American people the balanced budget they deserve with a modest tax cut and the lower interest rates and brighter hope for the future it will bring.” And they came through on that promise.

During his two terms in office, Clinton reduced spending as a share of gross domestic product from 21 percent in fiscal year 1994 to 18.2 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2001. Today, spending stands at 24.3 of GDP. According to the Office of Management and Budget, Obama’s two-term average spending level is projected at 23.4 percent of GDP as opposed to 19.9 percent for Clinton. During his two terms, Clinton grew spending by 12.3 percent in real terms — a sharp contrast with the Reagan years and the Bush years. When he left office, total spending was close to $2 trillion, and the federal government registered a surplus of $142 billion (all numbers are adjusted for inflation). In fiscal 2012, federal spending was $3.2 trillion, and our deficit was $1.1 trillion.

So, again, as long as we’re going to talk about how great the Clinton-era tax rates were, why aren’t we also talking about his spending cuts?

“For all the talk about returning to Clinton-era policies, the president is sadly silent about his predecessor’s spending levels. To be fair, the only way that we could go back to these spending levels is if Congress finally reforms Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,” the economist notes.

“And reforming those programs is also the only way to put this country back on a sustainable financial path. So what are we waiting for?” she asks.

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (54)

NigelTufnel
Posted on December 17, 2012 at 4:09pm
We need to get the corporate tax rate 43% below the highest individual rate 36.5%. That would stimulate investment. Let’s take the highest individual rates to 40% and the corportate rate(highest in the world) down to 35%. It would get some of that money on the sidelines moving again.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
nomark
Posted on December 17, 2012 at 3:23pm
I can’t believe how short American’s memories are. The reason Clinton was able to get a surplus and robust economy was the backlash from Bush I’s tax hikes, and “the peace dividend.” Remember that folks? The Berlin Wall fell and we all beat our swords into plows? We were able to cut taxes because we cut military spending (As well as welfare reform) and that’s what worked.

But what happened in the mean time was Bush II (note to nation: Bush presidents = bad news for America) spent away. The people who say Bush II and Obama are the same are not all that off. They are both spendaholics. Now to his credit Bush may have been trying to “help” while Obama is trying to crash this nation into the ground, but the fact remains, both have sold the next 2 generations into tax slavery.

Here are the numbers:

We owe $16.3Trillion. We spend $3.8T, we bring in $2.2T. So to just break even, not spend more than we take in, we have to cut $1.6T. We can’t agree on $100B, but we have to cut $1.6T just to stop adding to the $16.3T we owe now. We waste $300B on the interest on the debt every year (and that’s at historic low interest rates. about 2%). So if we want to stop waiting that $300B, we need to start paying off the debt. So ife we cut $500Billion from the budget each year, that means we can only spend $1.7T on programs and $500B to pay off the debt. If we did this, it’d take 50+ years to pay off the debt. That’s 2 generations past our own.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- nomark
  Posted on December 17, 2012 at 3:52pm
  There is an additional problem. The US does most of it’s debt via short term notes. These notes are not locking in the low rates. So every 5 or so years we have to re-finance the debt. In fact about 70% of the debt has to be re-fied in about 5 years. In 5 years do you think rates will be up or down? Historically the rates are over double what they are now. So let’s say double. That means in 5 years, we’ll be spending an additional $420B (70% of $600B) on top of the $300B we spend now on the interest for the debt. Does the possibility of $720B on interest alone wake anyone up? That would be almost 1/3 of every dollar collected via taxes going to just the interest on the debt. That would equate to cutting every SS check, every govt salary, every military budget by 30%. That’s a real possibility in 5-6 years.
  
  More to consider. I hear lots of people saying “we’ll just not pay the debt cause it’s held by those horrible Chinese.” Well folks 60% of the debt is held by you. American’s hold 60%. Foreigners hold most of the rest and the Fed holds some. Yes, I’m all with you if you say tell the Fed to take a hike. But we can’t tell our neighbors and families to pound salt. And we can’t tell that to our allays if we ever want to have a relationship in the future. And we don’t want to tell that to the Chinese because they could go Tony Soprano on us and just take us out at the knees. (Both literally and figuratively.)
  
  Report this comment
terryb1110
Posted on December 16, 2012 at 3:18am
This argument about taxing the wealthist lowering productivity is completly ridiculous. In order to stimulate the economy you need to increase the amount of money that people spend. You do that best by not giving 1 person 1000 but by giving 10 people 100 dollars.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- AllLost
  Posted on December 16, 2012 at 5:56am
  The economy will not come back until it completely disintegrates. The Great Depression will be remembered as the good ol’ days when we did not burn our food.
  
  Report this comment
- jlarson41
  Posted on December 16, 2012 at 9:52am
  No, you do that best by creating an atmosphere where ten people earn $100 to spend. Giving ten people $100 is the problem.
  
  Report this comment
- ferocious20022002
  Posted on December 16, 2012 at 12:40pm
  C’mon Terry B, borrowing money to give to people to spend does nothing for the economy, except raise Federal expenses and taxes. Somebody has to pay the interest. 10 new people working grows the economy and reduces the deficit. Letting someone keep(not giving them) $1000 will increase their spending and the economy. If that person is well off they invest the $1000 in some way(fix up the house, buy stock in a company, lend it to someone to start a business) that grows the economy.
  
  The article is exactly right. I don’t like Bill Clinton, or his wife, but, despite his moral failings, he was an honest politician and figured out wayw to actually help the country by tax decreases, cutting spending increases, It was the last good example of true bi-partisan cooperation for the good of the country. Would the current crop of Democrats and Republicans could do half as well.
  
  Report this comment
John Steinsvold
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 9:56pm
An Alternative to Capitalism (since we cannot legislate morality)

Several decades ago, Margaret Thatcher claimed: “There is no alternative”.
She was referring to capitalism. Today, this negative attitude still persists.

I would like to offer an alternative to capitalism for the American people to consider.
Please click on the following link. It will take you to an essay titled: “Home of the Brave?”
which was published by the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm

John Steinsvold

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”
~ Albert Einstein

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ferocious20022002
  Posted on December 16, 2012 at 12:54pm
  “There still is no alternative”. Just look at the PIlgrims. Why do we have Thanksgiving? Because after a couple of years trying to live by the gobbeldygook you subscribe to they were starving. They got wise and split up the community property so each family had a plot of land, instead of each family supposedly working on the community farms. The families listened to the native peoples, learned how to farm, and that year they had a bountiful harvest, celebrated by a feast of Thanksgiving.
  
  We do not have a similar capitalist system in the United States anymore. We have an oligopoly of Government/Big Industry/Big Banks. Despite the oligopoly 80% of the jobs are still in small(<$200 million in sales) companies.
  
  Communitarianism, or communism, simply doesn't work because it ignores the basic principles of the human psyche. The only time it has worked, after a fashion, is in voluntary communes(called monasteries) based on religious principles. The communards voluntarily give up their own wishes and agree to work together under a wise, but limited in authority, leader.
  
  Report this comment
- johnrysf
  Posted on December 16, 2012 at 2:01pm
  FYI: Tried hyperlink, doesn’t work correctly.
  
  Report this comment
ALL4FREEDOM
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 7:23pm
And let us not forget Clinton’s BALANCED BUDGETS that the REPUBLICAN HOUSE forced him into signing.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DisgustedinUSA
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 7:15pm
Whats MOST concerning to me, is that there is a bunch of complete IDIOTS that are running this country and telling us what to do and how to do it. What ever happened to WE THE PEOPLE???? telling them????

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- hallkbrdz
  Posted on December 16, 2012 at 12:43am
  Exactly.
  
  THEY are called PUBLIC SERVANTS. Why? Because THEY (are supposed to) serve at our beck and call.
  
  But what we have now is 180 degrees from that thanks to progressives.
  
  It’s time for the states to repeal this failed government, wipe the books clean, and start again fresh. This experiment is over. We the people know where it failed, and how it failed, and it is up to us to make changes to those basic configurations (such as term limits) and start again hopefully with better long-term results for our children’s sakes.
  
  Report this comment
- johnrysf
  Posted on December 16, 2012 at 2:13pm
  Sadly, IMHO, huge money in politics, lobbyists writing legislation, corporitocracy, the Tea Party capturing the GOP and turning it into the party of stupid obstructionism, regulatory capture, financial sector corruption, a regressive tax code, free trade, and other policies that have decimated the middle class and lead to a new Gilded Age of extreme destructive income inequality, and on and on. Think fascism.
  
  I’m old, and for the first time in my life, I am worried.
  
  Report this comment
sacwoodpusher
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 6:18pm
I would like all Blaze readers out there to join with me in saying: Take the cliff, embrace it. It is the best of all possible worlds. Why are we wringing our hands at a chance to balance the budget and put America back on track?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TheBurningTruth
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 6:32pm
  Actually, the sad part is that the “cliff” only represents a total of about $600B in spending cuts and revenue increases. That’s about HALF the annual deficit.
  
  “The Cliff” is only a speed-bump!
  
  If we went over a “real cliff” of three times the size of this speed bump, we would have about a $600B surplus and that would take over 26 years to slowly wipe out the national debt. And that assumes that interest rates remain where they are. Currently, the average interest rate on our $16T debt is below 3% thanks to the very low Treasury rates. If that ONLY rose to the 50 year historical average of 5%, then our interest payments would almost double.
  
  Barry’s plan is to so indebt this country that wealth taxes and asset seizures (401ks etc) are mandatory just to pay the interest. Of course, they’ll start with “the rich” but the real goal is to equalize everyone. Progressive Liberals would rather have everybody living in filth and squalor than have 15% left behind and 85% living a good life. Unfortunately, they’ve convinced too many in that 85% that their life isn’t good enough if anybody has more.
  
  Report this comment
daleneff
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 5:47pm
While technically Clinton had a surplus, it is only because revenues from social security taxes was counted as income and a cash method of accounting was used. Government should be evaluated using accrual accounting rather than cash accounting because of know future liabilities which some have said are in the $100 trillion dollar range.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
UNALIEN
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 1:23pm
ok here is the dirty little secret that nobody will tell you,, ready

Big wealth is not from earned income, it is from asset price inflation…

WAA,, yes the very wealthy like Buffet derive their wealth from assets… not income

What drives asset price inflation, currency devaluation

What drives currency devaluation, Government debt escalation

What drives Government debt escalation, the welfare state and entitlement expansion aka socialism

In other words, the wealthy elites increase their wealth by promoting “Socialism”, their assets rise in price due to currency devaluation caused by Government debt expansion. The losers are the income earners. Government debt expansion screws income earners and enriches the elites… this is NeoKeynesianism promoted b elitist shills like Krugman

Now you know, get the pitchforks…. raising income taxes on the wealthy does nothing, increasing debt benefits them.

Income earners benefit from deflation, but the State and the elites lose, so with the hepl of the Fed, they ensure “inflation” and that is created by expanding debt..

It is an amazing ponzi scheme to transfer the productivity of earned income to the rentiers or asset owners…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BehindBlueEyes
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 4:10pm
  I’m sharpening my pitchfork as we speak.
  
  Report this comment
jungle J
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 12:51pm
Obama leads the burnouts the greedy and the mentally ill…we are out numbered.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
jungle J
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 12:49pm
because they want to destroy freedom…that is why…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Blazer58
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 12:36pm
“President Obama’s ‘Plan’ Adds $8.6 Trillion to the Debt,” the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee contends. Here’s a chart put together by the Republicans on the committee to explain how Obama’s plan adds to the debt:
* Without mentioning the role of Congress in taxes, spending, or the national debt,[211] [212] PolitiFact (in the same article cited above) wrote that the national debt increased by $5.73 trillion “under” George W. Bush whereas there were budget surpluses “at the end of the Clinton administration.”[213]

* Below are the fluctuations in national debt organized by the tenures of recent presidents and congressional majorities:

Political Power Dates Average Annual Change
in National Debt
(Percentage Points of GDP)
Bill Clinton with Democratic House and Senate 1/20/93 – 1/4/95 0.9
Bill Clinton with Republican House and Senate 1/4/95 – 1/19/01 -1.5
George W. Bush with Republican House and Senate 1/19/01 – 6/6/01,11/12/02 – 1/4/07 0.8
George W. Bush with Republican House and Democratic Senate 6/6/01 – 11/12/02 2.2
George W. Bush with Democratic House and Senate 1/4/07 – 1/20/09 6.5
Barack Obama with Democratic House and Senate 1/20/09 – 1/4/11 9.3 214]

* Other factors impacting the national debt include but are not limited to legislation passed by previous Congresses and Presidents,[215] economic cycles, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, demographics, and the actions of U.S. citizens and foreign governments.[21

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- READRIGHTHERE
  Posted on December 16, 2012 at 1:25am
  Thank you 58. I’ve Wondered about that.
  
  Reagan during the Republican convention nominating George HW Bush for President said the purse strings belong to congress. The President can’t spend a dime without them. I was just questioning to myself, how much of Bush’s debt was generated by the democrats in congress. On to the midterms!
  
  Pelosi and Reid. Evil twin powers activate, form of a giant moron carrying a wet blanket for the economy.
  
  Report this comment
BehindBlueEyes
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 10:53am
Who in their right mind thinks that in order to get out of debit you need to spend more. This is pure insanity. It is the commie in chief’s single most important tool for collapsing the America’s economy so that Soros can usher in his new world order (a.k.a. world wide communism).
If you think you have red tape in your life now wait till the commies have control. You’ll need need to apply for permission to take a leak.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- PATTY HENRY
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 11:34am
  Who, in their right mind, thinks that it’s okay to demand more taxes but doesn’t feel obligated to cut
  spending at the same time.
  GOOD GRIEF!! WE know and we hear daily about duplication, waste, stupidity and extreme spending on the part of the GOBMENT.
  It’s grow up time all around folks. Part of Growing up as a Country, as a World is DISCIPLINE and balance. THE EPA, for example, wastes Billions of dollars that otherwise could enhance our economy. CHEATERS and CON – ARTISTS, FRAUDS and THIEVES need to be culled from the
  recipients list. THERE IS a LOT that GOBMENT can do.
  IT MAKES NO SENSE TO TAX MORE only to WASTE MORE.
  
  Report this comment
- oneshiner
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 11:56am
  Patty, you always say my thoughts so well, I don’t have to add anything to them. However, in reality,
  only idiots keep spending after they go broke.
  I’m so afraid all of this and the violence is a part of what they are intending to do to set us up for a fall.
  We no longer have people in our government who seem to care or LOVE America as most of us do.
  
  Report this comment
ares338
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 10:27am
As long as Dims (spelling intentional) use the evil rich theme the thing in the oval orfice can play the hero that saves the little guy. Really kind of pathetic don’t you think?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Exrepublisheep
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 10:50am
  But effective.
  
  Report this comment
- DADDYWOREAWHITEHAT
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 11:27am
  Does no one get that he is describing the evil rich as a family of six earning $250,000?? It’s not his rich buddies like John Kerry & warren buffet & those REALLY rich friends of his. It’s the hard working couple with 2 jobs each trying to put several kids through college. If that’s you do you like being called evil rich? Do you think you are not paying your “fair share”? Wake up! He is trying to kill the middle class & leave only the rich & powerful vs the working poor who serve them.
  
  Report this comment
DadRocked
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 10:23am
Bottom line… MILTON FRIEDMAN
For those tha don’t know of him, go to you tube. search Milton Friedman.

Mr. Friedman IS the noted American economist, statistician, and author who taught at the University of Chicago. In layman terms, you’ll learn of how efficient capitalism and freedom coincides.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 11:55am
  Dr.Friedman was a titan in the field of economics and an advisor to president Reagan.
  
  Report this comment
- UNALIEN
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 4:53pm
  Friedman was very good, however he erred in one important respect. he believed that the market would regulate the State (debt) expansion.. But the State has subverted the market forces so much that there is virtually no controls or restraint on Government expansion. the free market that Friedman espoused has been co-opted, diminished and relegated to a straw man for the left to lay blame for the results of Progressive policies.
  
  IMO, Friedmans failure was trusting the systemic accountability of politicians within a Keynesian paradigm. He accepted Keynesianism when he should have rejected it as it gives too much power to the State and its cohorts to plunder..
  
  Report this comment
chas
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 10:21am
What??? You can’t be serious??? You don’t believe the Progressive thought that if you raise the taxes on the top 2% to Clinton era levels, and leave everything else alone, that everything will be fixed????

Look out below.. here we come!! (no more free phones, no more 99 weeks of unemployment, 100% participation in the taxes being paid, that’s a cliff??)

I have an excellent idea for cost reduction.. cut Congress’ pay in half, and the White House too.. What do ya think???

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BSdetector
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 10:39am
  I have a better idea:
  Make congressional pay = median household income. That would solve SO many problems.
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 10:56am
  BSDETECTOR, While you are at that, go after the real money that most do not see. Slash their monthly expense accounts. Furthermore, don’t just give them a specified amount in their expense accounts. Rather put a cap on it, and make them turn in receipts like everybody else. The president has a similar expense account when he can pocket anything that remains after expenses. That has been regardless of party. Put an end to that too.
  
  Report this comment
- For my Liberty!
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 12:10pm
  AND get rid of their health care, FULL PAY RETIREMENT…MAKE them have the SAME healthcare that was shoved down AMERICAN’S throats, and draw SS when they retire!
  
  Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 10:09am
Nah it’s better to think Barry is ‘looking out for the little guy’,so raise the rates and make some idiots feel like they’re taking from the evil rich.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 10:31am
  That”s because barry think’s all the evil rich people are white men….White men are BAD people didn’t you get that memo?
  
  Report this comment
- DadRocked
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 11:33am
  Never have I gotten a job from a poor man…
  
  Report this comment
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 11:50am
  Relax gents it’s sarcasm
  
  Report this comment
AUsername
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 10:06am
how about no tax increase on the middle class so the rich bankersm ceos and corporations can steal more money from the people who work for a living, otherwise their crystal night is coming.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RIGS
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 10:14am
  You have to be a LIBERAL SOCIALIST MORON for yor comment……..
  
  Report this comment
- brother_ed
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 10:23am
  @AUSERNAME
  
  Your comment proves that the tax issue has nothing to do with creating jobs, nor with the economy; it is all about class warfare.
  
  Obama’s whole view of life, which you share, is: ‘You are poor, because somebody else is rich’.
  
  Report this comment
- JSherrillj
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 10:25am
  Does it hurt to be that dumb? Just curious.
  
  Report this comment
- RickMik
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 10:44am
  The reference to crystal night tells one all they need to know about this mindset.
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 11:16am
  JSHERRILLJ, I seriously doubt that it hurts AUSERNAME. Having his lips permanently attached to 0bama’s sphincter must have something of a numbing effect.
  
  Report this comment
jmmjr49er
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 9:59am
Stimulus 2009 has continued for 3 years. I mean without a budget passed Congress/Senate have continued Stimulus 2009 for 3 years.

Recovery Fall/Winter is coming! Followed by Spring and Summer of Recovery. Lookout GDP!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DougHuffman
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 9:45am
From Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s fan site; “A weighted random number generator just produced a new batch of numbers.” “Let’s use them to build narratives!” http://nassimtaleb.org

The more stable the economy, the more fragile it becomes to tinkerers.

God Bless Bitter Clingers, damn know-nothings, progressives. “From my cold, dead hands” works for me.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
JSherrillj
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 9:39am
I would settle for a budget freeze. Dont cut anything a single penny. There have been NO proposals to reduce spending only to reduce the rate of growth. NOT ONE CENT MORE

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 10:11am
  I want the tax rates and government spending to go back to the 1890′s not the 1990′s….
  
  Report this comment
Choctaw25
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 9:36am
No one on the left is going to address this issue, because it makes too much sense. Plus it would kill Santa Claus effect of the Democrat Party, less votes

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RIGS
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 9:35am
WISH IN ONE HAND and CRAP IN THE OTHER HAND and see what you get with this president.Lets start with not taking a 4,000,000.00 plus vacation on taxpayers dime for starters,

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
UNALIEN
Posted on December 15, 2012 at 9:34am
BOOYAH..

now don’t confuse the Democrat class warfare narrative with facts and reality…

of course, it is a spending problem, holding taxes down is a mechanism to keep the Government from increasing spending..

if taxes go up, will it hurt the rich, not likely, but it would just encourage more Government spending..

Obamas balanced approach, increase taxes and increase spending much more…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- azcowboy1
  Posted on December 15, 2012 at 9:47am
  Come on un, use the right words. It’s not taxes, it’s investing in the future. Can I invest barrowed money? Yes. Great, I’m headed for the bank right now. I sure hope my investment pays off. A gobberment gone amuck.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.