Kennedy. Democratic controlled Congress 1962.
All tax cuts are not good. All tax increases are not bad.
That's why Republicans have raised taxes and are raising taxes in my state.
Bush giveth, Crist taketh away.

The moderate-liberal Republican blogger opines that the Republican Party should back off the tax cuts mantra: “Republicans are upset about all the spending going on under President Obama. In someways, they should be concerned about all this. But then….

If politicians thought they could get away with it, they would tax everyone at 100%.

P.S. I thought that the progressives would stop talking about deficits now that Presdient Obama is running massive deficits and creating massive new entitlements.

As the U.S. begins to nationalize industry and try to convert large parts of the economy to not-for-profit, people should wonder who will be left to pay taxes to keep everything going.

The credit gods last year were angry and lusting for blood. They wanted a live sacrifice but were not satisfied with the painful, public deaths of Bear Stearns, <span class=”qlink”>Lehman Bros. (LEHMQ, news, msgs)</span> and Washington Mutual.

They demanded more, and for a while in February it looked like they wanted no less than the entire financial system to burn as punishment for all the hubris and crimes of leverage that lenders and borrowers had committed for a decade.

Instead, the U.S. government threw itself in front of the banks and tossed two industrial companies into the line of fire: Chrysler and <span class=”qlink”>General Motors (GMGMQ, news, msgs)</span>. And that appears to have done the trick, because by all appearances the great credit crisis of 2007-08 ended with the two carmakers' bankruptcies and is now on the path toward a real recovery. We're not talking just “green shoots” here but flowers and trees.

The automakers' bankruptcies are major milestones in the recovery of the markets for a very strange reason, according to credit analysts. Investors had come to expect that Chrysler debt holders would lose their legal rights at the front of the line and be annihilated in a prepackaged bankruptcy — humiliated, ground into meatballs and fed to sharks — and instead, in a shocking development, they were treated with a respect almost amounting to decency.

That led to a thaw in the corporate credit markets, to the surprise of virtually everyone involved, and snowballed into what one veteran called “euphoric buying” two months ago. That was only accentuated when details of General Motors' bankruptcy began taking shape in late May.

I read the NYT article yesterday and as I predicted people are taking what they want from it. This quote really sums things up:

“Bush behaved incredibly irresponsibly for eight years. On the one hand, it might seem unfair for people to blame Obama for not fixing it. On the other hand, he’s not fixing it.”

“And,” he added, “not fixing it is, in a sense, making it worse.”

If people want to assign blame that's fine but it does nothing to fix the problem now. As much as people want to point fingers this is Obama and the Democrat's problem to fix, and we should expect them to fix it. This has to be done by a combination of spending restraint and raising taxes.

The same goes for disaster relief services, epitomized by the Katrina fiasco. There is absolutely no reason for us to outsource, at greatly elevated cost, services that our own disaster relief agencies are better able to perform. Again, services were privatized, rather than sending in our National Guard and beefing up our own relief agencies.

When we do decide to do something, it's time to act like adults and raise the money to pay for what we want to buy. “Tax-and-spend” has always been a better strategy than “borrow and spend” which has characterized the Republican approach, ever since Reagan.

Raising taxes should be part of the toolkit, but it shouldn't be the first tool in the hand. Or even the second. In fact, it should be only used if the other tools won't fix the problem.

No Republican can run on a “I might raise taxes” platform. No Republican can raise taxes during his term and not see a George Bush Sr. backlash the following election. It would be akin to a Democrat running on a platform where they say that services and SSI will be slashed. Never happen.

Please stop the Republican talking points. Your Messiah, Ronnie Raygun raised taxes. This link from NRO:
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bar…

The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

Another source that shyow how Reagan raised taxes:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/…
Another:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh060804.shtml

The late Clinton years were an outlier (ironically, preceded by a huge tax cut in 1997). Holding that up as a gold standard of governmental responsibility is a lie. They were flush with cash and didn't have enough time to spend it all. Spending still increased. Spending almost ALWAYS increases and has done so for decades and decades.

National debt by U.S. presidential terms

<table class=”wikitable sortable”>
<tr>
<th>U.S. president</th>
<th>Party</th>
<th>Term years</th>
<th>Start debt/GDP*</th>
<th>End debt/GDP*</th>
<th>Increase debt ($T)</th>
<th>Increase debt/GDP</th>
</tr>

<tr>
<td>Roosevelt/Truman</td>
<td>D</td>
<td>1945-1949</td>
<td>117.5%</td>
<td>93.2%</td>
<td>0.05</td>
<td>-24.3%</td>

</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style=”display:none”>Truman</span> Harry Truman</td>
<td>D</td>
<td>1949-1953</td>
<td>93.2%</td>
<td>71.3%</td>
<td>0.01</td>
<td>-21.9%</td>

</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style=”display:none”>Eisenhower1</span> Dwight Eisenhower</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>1953-1957</td>
<td>71.3%</td>
<td>60.5%</td>
<td>0.01</td>
<td>-10.8%</td>

</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style=”display:none”>Eisenhower2</span> Dwight Eisenhower</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>1957-1961</td>
<td>60.5%</td>
<td>55.1%</td>
<td>0.02</td>
<td>-5.4%</td>

</tr>
<tr>
<td>Kennedy/Johnson</td>
<td>D</td>
<td>1961-1965</td>
<td>55.1%</td>
<td>46.9%</td>
<td>0.03</td>
<td>-8.2%</td>

</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style=”display:none”>Johnson</span> Lyndon Johnson</td>
<td>D</td>
<td>1965-1969</td>
<td>46.9%</td>
<td>38.6%</td>
<td>0.05</td>
<td>-8.3%</td>

</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style=”display:none”>Nixon1</span> Richard Nixon</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>1969-1973</td>
<td>38.6%</td>
<td>35.7%</td>
<td>0.07</td>
<td>-2.9%</td>

</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style=”display:none”>Nixon2</span> Nixon/Ford</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>1973-1977</td>
<td>35.7%</td>
<td>35.8%</td>
<td>0.19</td>

<td>+0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style=”display:none”>Carter</span> Jimmy Carter</td>
<td>D</td>
<td>1977-1981</td>
<td>35.8%</td>
<td>32.6%</td>
<td>0.18</td>

<td>-3.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style=”display:none”>Reagan1</span> Ronald Reagan</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>1981-1985</td>
<td>32.6%</td>
<td>43.9%</td>
<td>0.65</td>

<td>+11.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style=”display:none”>Reagan2</span> Ronald Reagan</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>1985-1989</td>
<td>43.9%</td>
<td>53.1%</td>
<td>1.04</td>

<td>+9.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style=”display:none”>Bush GHW</span> George H. W. Bush</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>1989-1993</td>
<td>53.1%</td>
<td>66.2%</td>
<td>1.40</td>

<td>+13.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style=”display:none”>Clinton1</span> Bill Clinton</td>
<td>D</td>
<td>1993-1997</td>
<td>66.2%</td>
<td>65.6%</td>
<td>1.12</td>

<td>-0.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style=”display:none”>Clinton2</span> Bill Clinton</td>
<td>D</td>
<td>1997-2001</td>
<td>65.6%</td>
<td>57.4%</td>
<td>0.42</td>

<td>-8.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style=”display:none”>Bush GW1</span> George W. Bush</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>2001-2005</td>
<td>57.4%</td>
<td>64.3%</td>
<td>1.15</td>

<td>+6.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style=”display:none”>Bush GW2</span> George W. Bush</td>
<td>R</td>
<td>2005-2009</td>
<td>64.3%</td>
<td>75.5%</td>
<td></td>

<td>+11.7%</td>
</tr>
</table>

In conclusion, if you elect a Republican into the White House, you should expect the debt to go trough the roof.

An considering the track record of Republicans, I am amazed that they have the balls to criticize anyone on fiscal matters, or to call themselves fiscal conservatives.

It worked in Europe this past weekend where conservative parties won in elections the Europarliament.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but most of the European Conservatives with the exception of the Brits are solidly to the left of the Democratic Party as it currently exist.

The late Clinton years were an outlier (ironically, preceded by a huge tax cut in 1997). Holding that up as a gold standard of governmental responsibility is a lie. They were flush with cash and didn't have enough time to spend it all. Spending still increased. Spending almost ALWAYS increases and has done so for decades and decades.

No Republican can run on a “I might raise taxes” platform. No Republican can raise taxes during his term and not see a George Bush Sr. backlash the following election. It would be akin to a Democrat running on a platform where they say that services and SSI will be slashed. Never happen.

Which illustrates why it is ridiculous we are saddled with a two party system. Our parties inherently have to lie to us for self-preservation. It's an accepted fact of life.