80 CEOs agree - Tax increases are needed

[BigAppleBucky]

@Sam_Stone

You did see that they’re calling for a 3:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases, right? Are you okay with that? Do you think the Democrats will go along with that? . . .

See here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=669287&highlight=Budget+tool

IIRC, my answer was about 70% spending cuts and 30% revenue increases.

That the teahadists refuse to even let revenue increases be discussed in totally unreasonable.

[BigAppleBucky]

@Sam_Stone

. . . you’ll never get Democrats to agree to the spending cuts. Oh, they’ll claim to agree, but they’ll pull their usual shenanigans like cancelling planned increases and calling that a ‘cut’, or setting some outrageous ‘baseline’ for current spending and then agree to cut back from that to some number that still causes government to grow but which they’ll tout as a ‘cut’.

Cite?

[John_Mace]

There is an active thread on this subject in the ELECTIONS forum.

Link.

[Bosstone]

I can’t see the title of this thread without thinking of Kids in the Hall.

[Ludovic]

@Bosstone

I can’t see the title of this thread without thinking of Kids in the Hall.

Heh, now that you mention it it does remind one doesn’t it.

I was too hung up on always reading the title as “80s CEOs agree” to think of 30 Helens.

[Critical1]

@Sam_Stone

The reason Republicans have rejected tax increases is because history shows that whenever Republicans agree to tax increases in exchange for spending cuts, the tax increases generally happen and the spending cuts don’t. So government just grows bigger and the problem gets worse. So you’d have to have some sort of iron-clad framework that guarantees the spending cuts, and which mandates that all savings be applied to the deficit. If you could get that, a lot of Republicans would get on board.

um, I am having a hard time believing this. considering the massive increases in government spending under every president with an R next to their name since (and including) Regan.

[XT]

@Critical1

um, I am having a hard time believing this. considering the massive increases in government spending under every president with an R next to their name since (and including) Regan.

You do realize in our system that it’s Congress who controls the purse strings, not the president…right? Wasnt really the point Sam was trying to make, either.

[Gangster_Octopus]

Who cares what CEOs think, a country is not a company. I am sick of this idea that CEOs are the overwhelming seers of whats good for the economy.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Sam_Stone

The reason Republicans have rejected tax increases is because history shows that whenever Republicans agree to tax increases in exchange for spending cuts, the tax increases generally happen and the spending cuts don’t. So government just grows bigger and the problem gets worse. So you’d have to have some sort of iron-clad framework that guarantees the spending cuts, and which mandates that all savings be applied to the deficit. If you could get that, a lot of Republicans would get on board.

Please explain the Grover Norquist Pledge to me. Is THAT how the pledge works?

But you’ll never get Democrats to agree to the spending cuts. Oh, they’ll claim to agree, but they’ll pull their usual shenanigans like cancelling planned increases and calling that a ‘cut’, or setting some outrageous ‘baseline’ for current spending and then agree to cut back from that to some number that still causes government to grow but which they’ll tout as a ‘cut’.

I’ve seen credible plans (during the tea party downgrade) that were 3::1. We have had quite a bit of cost cutting over the last 3 decades (outside of entitlements and the military), there is frankly not much left to cut in the bureaucracy (it accounts for 1/9th of the budget). But I don’t see the Republicans banging the drums on cutting entitlements (or the military) at least not in the general elections. Plenty of it in the primary.

[SenorBeef]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Which frankly is exactly what Obama is doing. He increased spending enormously and is now calling for the combination of spending cuts etc.

How much has Obama increased spending? Could you come up with a number? Especially non-temporary spending, I mean, you’re asserting that he’s increased regular spending enourmously. By how much? Can you give us some graphs?

[gamerunknown]

@Sam_Stone

“include comprehensive and pro-growth tax reform, which broadens the base, lowers rates, raises revenues and reduces the deficit.” That’s Romney’s plan.

Yup, colour me unsurprised. Increase taxes on the poor, cut their social programs (entitlements like food and healthcare - ignore the pesky stuff in the Gospels and the UDHR), claim that hunger is a powerful motivator, threaten to leave the country because of how hard it’ll be to create jobs with a top marginal tax bracket a third of that under Eisenhower, then complain about the effrontery of the proletariat to engage in class warfare by getting blood on the wheels of one’s carrosse.