President Jimmy Carter's last fiscal year budget ended with a $79.0 billion budget deficit (and a national debt of $907.7 billion as of September 30, 1980),[9] ending during the period of David Stockman's and Ronald Reagan's first year in office, on October 1, 1981.[10] The gross federal national debt had just increased to $1.0 trillion during October 1981 ($998 billion on September 30, 1981, up from $907.7 billion during the last full fiscal year of the Carter administration).[9]
By September 30, 1985, four and a half years into the Reagan administration and shortly after Stockman's resignation from the OMB during August 1985, the gross federal debt was $1.8 trillion.[9] Stockman's OMB work within the administration during 1981 until August 1985 was dedicated to negotiating with the Senate and House about the next fiscal year's budget, executed later during the autumn of 1985, which resulted in the national debt becoming $2.1 trillion at fiscal year end September 30, 1986.[9]
In 1981, Stockman received the Samuel S. Beard Award for Greatest Public Service by an Individual 35 Years or Under, an award given out annually by Jefferson Awards.[11]
"Read my lips: no new taxes" killed Bush1's second term.
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. [Will Rogers]
"Read my lips: no new taxes" killed Bush1's second term.
I think as a practical matter we need to get away from thinking that taxes as some kind of fixed policy variable. There are times when it makes sense from a monetary and economic perspective for taxes to move downward and others when it makes sense for taxes to move higher. IMO it’s important to keep the economy and the currency as stable as possible so the variables that affect that stability such as taxes, interest rates and government spending, debt and deficit will have to move up or down to bring about that stability. The current problem is that the debt and deficits are out of control, inflation is high and certain government entitlement programs are on track to outrun their funding in the next 5 to 10 years. Not to mention that there are other demands on our government that require sizable investments. These need to be addressed comprehensively instead of this piecemeal approach which is our normal operating procedure.
JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 10:27 am
I think as a practical matter we need to get away from thinking that taxes as some kind of fixed policy variable. There are times when it makes sense from a monetary and economic perspective for taxes to move downward and others when it makes sense for taxes to move higher. IMO it’s important to keep the economy and the currency as stable as possible so the variables that affect that stability such as taxes, interest rates and government spending, debt and deficit will have to move up or down to bring about that stability. The current problem is that the debt and deficits are out of control, inflation is high and certain government entitlement programs are on track to outrun their funding in the next 5 to 10 years. Not to mention that there are other demands on our government that require sizable investments. These need to be addressed comprehensively instead of this piecemeal approach which is our normal operating procedure.
If you're concerned about stability, why are you voting for Republicans who wanted to take our economy down?
Glennfs wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:23 am
Not one of your dire predictions came true. They were all blather and nonsense.
We’re very lucky to have a man of the caliber of Joe Biden leading this country. He was able to play the GOP off each other, and they are now showing how crazy they are.
gounion wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:27 am
We’re very lucky to have a man of the caliber of Joe Biden leading this country. He was able to play the GOP off each other, and they are now showing how crazy they are.
You just keep believing that and ignoring that he is obviously not mentally qualified for a second term.
By the way the progressive democrats in the House and Senate didn't like the deal either.
As extremes from both parties are opposed to any compromise.
gounion wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:31 am
Yet Joe Biden was able to get it done.
So go ahead and tell us why Donald Trump should be the next President.
I am attempting to avoid getting pulled in to a flame war with you. Caee in point as you know I never voted for Trump never wanted Trump to be president and certainly do not want him to be president again.
But you go ahead and throw spitballs if it makes you feel better about yourself
Glennfs wrote: ↑Sat Jun 10, 2023 7:43 am
I am attempting to avoid getting pulled in to a flame war with you. Caee in point as you know I never voted for Trump never wanted Trump to be president and certainly do not want him to be president again.
But you go ahead and throw spitballs if it makes you feel better about yourself
Yet you defend and cover for Trump time after time. You insist he’s innocent of any and all wrongdoing.
Tell me, Glenn, what CRIMES has Donald Trump committed? Lay them out, and stand by them. Prove me wrong.
And you’ve never minded flame wars ever. That’s why you’re here.
JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Fri Jun 09, 2023 10:27 am
I think as a practical matter we need to get away from thinking that taxes as some kind of fixed policy variable. There are times when it makes sense from a monetary and economic perspective for taxes to move downward and others when it makes sense for taxes to move higher. IMO it’s important to keep the economy and the currency as stable as possible so the variables that affect that stability such as taxes, interest rates and government spending, debt and deficit will have to move up or down to bring about that stability. The current problem is that the debt and deficits are out of control, inflation is high and certain government entitlement programs are on track to outrun their funding in the next 5 to 10 years. Not to mention that there are other demands on our government that require sizable investments. These need to be addressed comprehensively instead of this piecemeal approach which is our normal operating procedure.
The democratic party seems to believe we can tax ourselves to prosperity. The line that the rich aren't paying their fair share is one of the greatest political lines of all time.
While I might believe their fair share is 42pct and a progressive believe it is 99.9pct. We both would agree with the statement.
Which is why no politician ever gives a number as to what that fair share would be.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 9:55 am
The democratic party seems to believe we can tax ourselves to prosperity. The line that the rich aren't paying their fair share is one of the greatest political lines of all time.
While I might believe their fair share is 42pct and a progressive believe it is 99.9pct. We both would agree with the statement.
Which is why no politician ever gives a number as to what that fair share would be.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 10:42 am
I should have said some might. In fact I can't look it up because I am in traffic but I think Sanders recently called for 100pct
Bernie Sanders doesn't speak for the party. As a matter of fact, he's not a member. And you're being dishonest to a degree - He called for that rate over a billion dollars. I certainly don't agree with that. But that doesn't sound as good, does it?
And yes the people you voted for want more tax cuts for the rich.
I don't think that the rich should have a lower tax rate than I do. I don't think anyone should pay a lower tax rate than is taxed upon work.
gounion wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 10:49 am
Bernie Sanders doesn't speak for the party. As a matter of fact, he's not a member. And you're being dishonest to a degree - He called for that rate over a billion dollars. I certainly don't agree with that. But that doesn't sound as good, does it?
And yes the people you voted for want more tax cuts for the rich.
I don't think that the rich should have a lower tax rate than I do. I don't think anyone should pay a lower tax rate than is taxed upon work.
Top tax rate is 37pct the wealthy do pay a higher rate than you.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 9:55 am
The democratic party seems to believe we can tax ourselves to prosperity. The line that the rich aren't paying their fair share is one of the greatest political lines of all time.
While I might believe their fair share is 42pct and a progressive believe it is 99.9pct. We both would agree with the statement.
Which is why no politician ever gives a number as to what that fair share would be.
They cannot or will not define what is meant by the term “fair share”. You would think as often as they talk about it they would be able to tell everyone what it means. That being said, if we are going to keep entitlement programs solvent, payroll taxes will increase IMO. They will go up for working people and for employers.
JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 2:55 pm
They cannot or will not define what is meant by the term “fair share”. You would think as often as they talk about it they would be able to tell everyone what it means. That being said, if we are going to keep entitlement programs solvent, payroll taxes will increase IMO. They will go up for working people and for employers.
Well, to start with - and when they speak of "fair share" they usually aren't talking about payroll taxes, they're talking about income taxes, so you're dishonestly trying to conflate the two.
As to "fair share", shouldn't we, first bring enough money in with taxes to pay for the government? That's a yes or no question.
gounion wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 3:15 pm
Well, to start with - and when they speak of "fair share" they usually aren't talking about payroll taxes, they're talking about income taxes, so you're dishonestly trying to conflate the two.
As to "fair share", shouldn't we, first bring enough money in with taxes to pay for the government? That's a yes or no question.
We can then go from there.
Once again you like to name something so it suits you. Payroll taxes are taxes on your gross income. So they are in fact income taxes. Nothing dishonest about that.
Bringing in enough revenue to fund the government would be the objective. It would be nice if spending were under control. Sure would make that job a lot easier. Lots of variables when it comes to funding government.
JoeMemphis wrote: ↑Sun Jun 11, 2023 4:22 pm
Once again you like to name something so it suits you. Payroll taxes are taxes on your gross income. So they are in fact income taxes. Nothing dishonest about that.
Wow, talk about hypocrisy, Mr. “Medicare isn’t insurance”.
Most of the time when talking about paying your “fair share” for government, we’re talking about income taxes. But leave it up to an accountant to pretend otherwise. Donald Trump would have loved you.
Bringing in enough revenue to fund the government would be the objective. It would be nice if spending were under control. Sure would make that job a lot easier. Lots of variables when it comes to funding government.
Running away from the question again. You always run from taking a stance on anything.
Do you realize that, at this point, we can’t realistically cut enough spending to balance the budget and wipe out the debt?