Author Topic: Jim DeMint is absolutely correct  (Read 10982 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Jim DeMint is absolutely correct
« on: June 25, 2011, 11:01:07 PM »
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-jim-demint-warns-republicans-debt-ceiling-vote/story?id=13916811

Conservative firebrand Sen. Jim DeMint has a message to fellow Republicans in Congress: If you support increasing the debt ceiling without first passing a balanced budget amendment and massive across-the-board spending cuts, you're gone -- destined to be swept out of Congress by a wave of voter anger.

"Based on what I can see around the country," DeMint, R-S.C., said in an interview for the ABC News Subway Series, "not only are those individuals gone, but I would suspect the Republican Party would be set back many years.

"It would be the most toxic vote," DeMint said. "I can tell you if you look at the polls, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, they do not think we should increase the debt limit."

DeMint is not just talking political analysis here. He has a significant fundraising base and has shown a willingness to use his campaign money to support or oppose fellow Republicans.

DeMint will use that political muscle to oppose fellow Republicans who don't stand firm on the debt ceiling issue. He said he will not support any candidate for Congress -- incumbent or challenger -- who does not sign a pledge promising not to vote for a debt limit increase without first passing a balanced budget amendment, making deep spending cuts and putting strict limits on future government spending. The same rule applies to presidential candidates.

"I don't have many litmus tests, but this is one: Any candidate who doesn't understand that we need to balance the budget should not be president of the United States," DeMint said. "So, I'm looking for candidates to sign the pledge."

During the 2010 midterm elections, DeMint played key role in several high-stakes Republican primaries, supporting insurgent conservatives often at odds with party leaders. Many of those insurgents -- including Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, Christine O'Donnell of Delaware and Ken Buck of Colorado -- went on to win their Republican primaries.

DeMint said he plans to get involved, once again, in Republican primaries for the 2012 elections. One race he has his eye on is the open Senate seat in New Mexico, which is being vacated by retiring Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman. Republican leaders have recruited former Rep. Heather Wilson to run, but she faces a challenge against the more conservative John Sanchez, New Mexico's lieutenant governor.

"She's a friend, but we've talked to her and I don't think Heather's going to be thought of as a conservative, and she's got a good opponent," DeMint said. "We may get involved with that race, but we haven't made a final decision. I won't commit, at this point, but I think we're going to have a strong conservative there."

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jim DeMint is absolutely correct
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2011, 11:02:55 PM »
Why isn't DeMint running for president?

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Jim DeMint is absolutely correct
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2011, 11:08:46 PM »
Taxes are going up.

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jim DeMint is absolutely correct
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2011, 11:14:17 PM »
Taxes are going up.

they should for the people that aren't paying their fair share. People like XO deserve at least a 20% increase in taxes.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jim DeMint is absolutely correct
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2011, 02:02:59 PM »
if they do not raise the debt ceiling it is a sure thing that the interest rate on both the present rate and future rate will increase greatly, and we will be paying vastly more than we would be if the debt ceiling were raised. The cost to the taxpayers will be much more than if it isn't.

DeMint deserves to be drawn and quartered. He is a total idiot.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jim DeMint is absolutely correct
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2011, 02:36:28 PM »
if they do not raise the debt ceiling it is a sure thing that the interest rate on both the present rate and future rate will increase greatly, and we will be paying vastly more than we would be if the debt ceiling were raised. The cost to the taxpayers will be much more than if it isn't.

DeMint deserves to be drawn and quartered. He is a total idiot.

DeMint isn't an idiot, Obama is the idiot, and you are an idiot for voting for Obama. I guess that is the result of bad economics polices by our elected officilas -- so be it.  We need to take the medicine.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jim DeMint is absolutely correct
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2011, 03:41:27 PM »
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Kramer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5762
  • Repeal ObamaCare
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jim DeMint is absolutely correct
« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2011, 04:15:28 PM »
Taxes are going up.

Why?

they should on people that aren't paying taxes now. The ones that pay the least or none at all take the most from government.!

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Jim DeMint is absolutely correct
« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2011, 04:22:10 PM »
Because you can't balance the budget without raising revenue.

How Much Credibility Does the GOP Have on Taxes?
By Kevin D. Williamson
Posted on June 23, 2011 3:22 PM

How you know the White House is not taking the bipartisan deficit-reduction talks seriously: Joe Biden is in charge. I?ve made that observation before, and people think it?s a quip, but I mean it. The vice president is a fundamentally unserious figure, especially on fiscal issues. Barack Obama is a lot of things, many of them regrettable, but he is not a buffoon. This is a crisis that requires direct presidential leadership and top-level congressional leadership. It requires Barack Obama, John Boehner, and Harry Reid locked in a room. A small, uncomfortable room would be best. No pizza.

The Biden effort is disintegrating. Eric Cantor walked on the talks today. He says he wants the president to step in and ?resolve? the question of tax increases. There are two ways to read that word ?resolve?: One is: Obama should step in and hand the Republicans a victory by taking tax increases off the table. The other is: Obama should step in and hand Democrats a defeat by volunteering to take all the flak from the tax increases that almost certainly are going to be part of any bipartisan deficit deal.

Here?s Cantor:

    ?Each each side came into these talks with certain orders, and as it stands the Democrats continue to insist that any deal must include tax increases,? Cantor said in a statement. ?There is not support in the House for a tax increase, and I don?t believe now is the time to raise taxes in light of our current economic situation. Regardless of the progress that has been made, the tax issue must be resolved before discussions can continue.?

    ?Given this impasse, I will not be participating in today?s meeting, and I believe it is time for the president to speak clearly and resolve the tax issue. Once resolved, we have a blueprint to move forward to trillions of spending cuts and binding mechanisms to change the way things are done around here.?

And that is the heart of the thing: If Cantor & Co. can in fact achieve ?trillions? in cuts ? tens of trillions, really ? then they have a credible case for taking tax increases off the table.

So, how?s that looking?

The most ambitious deficit-reduction plan so far has been the Ryan Roadmap, which the House passed and then sent to its death in the Senate. I like the Roadmap, and I would be surprised to see a significantly more aggressive plan gain any traction in Congress. But even under the Roadmap, spending as a share of GDP would continue to rise through 2037 and would stay above 19 percent of GDP until 2063. Publicly held debt would hit 100 percent of GDP in 2043, which could very well prove catastrophic. (Tables here.) But while spending continues to grow as a share of GDP under the Roadmap, tax revenue is projected never to exceed 19 percent of GDP. That is by design, as Mr. Ryan?s team has made clear:

    Eventually, as economic activity picks up, revenues in the Roadmap plan rise back up above 18 percent of GDP, finally reaching the intended maximum amount of 19 percent of GDP in 2029.

Intended maximum. Which is to say, the most aggressive deficit-reduction plan yet produced by Republicans by design holds tax revenues below projected spending. For decades to come, the deficit-reduction plan is a plan for deficits. The turnaround year of 2037 is a long way?s away. That means that even if the Roadmap were enacted, further deficit-reduction measures would be needed, and needed sorely.

So, the question for Eric Cantor is: What evidence do you have that you can get something even more aggressive than the Roadmap through Congress and past Barack Obama? My guess is that his case sounds a lot like one hand clapping. And if my guess is correct, then the Republicans? anti-tax stance is just that: a stance, another word for which is a posture.

So, fine, posture, do your political calculating, whatever. Meanwhile, children being born today will be cursing our names for the burdens we have left them.

Political posturing is a question for Eric Cantor and Barack Obama. The question for the rest of us is: Where lies the consensus? I don?t mean that in a touchy-feely sense. I mean: What balance of taxation and spending are we prepared to accept? (And ?we? describes an electorate that elected Barack Obama after twice electing George W. Bush, that has made both Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House. That ?we.? That inexplicable, maddening ?we.?)

Federal spending in 2012 is expected to hit 23.6 percent of GDP, but tax revenue is only going to hit 16.6 percent. That?s bad. (Real bad.) But these are poison years. Let?s revisit happier days: From 1980?2000, federal outlays averaged 21.3 percent of GDP, taxes averaged 18.5 percent, deficits 2.8 percent. So, if there?s a post-recession return to historical norms, one or both of those factors still has to move by total of 2.8 percent of GDP to balance the budget. That would mean cutting about $400 billion from the 2012 budget or adding $400 billion in taxes, or a bit of both. (Assuming we get back to historical norms is a big assumption.)

Is there a consensus for cutting spending to 18.5 percent, the level we might expect taxes to hit? That?s a big drop from the forecast level of 2012 spending, about a 22 percent cut. The last time federal spending was only 18.5 percent of GDP was . . . 1999, not exactly the Dark Ages or a time of notable national austerity. So, it?s not impossible to imagine a consensus for 18.5 percent spending. On the flipside: Is there a consensus for taxation at 21 percent? That?s pretty high ? higher than it has ever been, in fact, even during World War II, when taxes topped out at 20.9 percent of GDP in 1944. The last time it?s been close ? 20.6 percent ? was in . . . 2000, not exactly the Dark Ages or a time of notable national austerity. Those variations show that, Democratic protestations aside, currently high spending is the larger abnormality, and so suggest that spending cuts should make up the bulk of the deficit-reduction plan.

But: How much?

I don?t want taxes or spending at 21.3 percent of GDP. I don?t want them at 18.5 percent, for that matter. I might go for spending at 14.2 percent and taxes at 16.1 percent as a good start, which would take us to the savage Darwinian conditions of . . . 1951, not exactly the Dark Ages or a time of notable national austerity. As I hear it, 1951 was a pretty good year. From 1950 to 1955, our average real GDP growth exceeded that magic 5 percent threshold that Tim Pawlenty and Larry Kudlow and the optimists are talking about, and that includes a little recession in 1954. (Granted, there are excellent reasons to believe that the postwar boom is not easily replicable. Here?s one. Here?s another. And one more. Not a unicorn in the bunch.)

But here?s the thing: If you want spend 21 percent, you really need to tax 21 percent. If you want to tax only 18.5 percent, you can only spend 18.5 percent. So far, Republicans have been pretty insistent about taxes, and not without reason (this probably is not the optimum moment to announce a large tax increase). But if you are not willing to move one variable, then you have to show yourself willing and able to move the other variable far enough to bring things into balance. The Republicans have been moving in the right direction, but they aren?t quite there. You want to take taxes off the table, then show me you can get the job done with cuts alone ? not on paper, but in Congress.

Why haven?t I mentioned the Democrats? They control the Senate and the White House, holding a far stronger hand than do the Republicans. The reason is that the Democrats are a lost cause. Their commitment to maintaining the current path of entitlement spending and public-sector expansion will ensure national bankruptcy at virtually any level of taxation. (Don?t believe me? Have a gander at what a $30 trillion deficit looks like.) Removing Democrats from power probably is a precondition for averting a national fiscal meltdown. A necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/270372

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11062
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jim DeMint is absolutely correct
« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2011, 05:47:07 PM »
we need to cut taxes....drastically
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jim DeMint is absolutely correct
« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2011, 06:06:12 PM »
The country is in the midst of a recession so of course the government needs LESS money. Duh.

Naturally, the only way for the government to get MORE money is to cut taxes again. Duh, duh.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11062
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jim DeMint is absolutely correct
« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2011, 06:10:58 PM »
The country is in the midst of a recession so of course the government needs LESS money. Duh.

Naturally, the only way for the government to get MORE money is to cut taxes again. Duh, duh.

Tell it to JFK!

Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jim DeMint is absolutely correct
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2011, 07:09:03 PM »
If rates were the same now as they were then, it might be a good idea, but (a) they are not, and (b) there was no recession in 1961.

Rates are lower now than since the 1930's.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jim DeMint is absolutely correct
« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2011, 08:30:40 PM »
  Tax cuts can increase tax revenue, it has been seen happening before.

   Do we understand this phenominon enough to cause it on purpose?

   Taxes are definately a drag on employment , productivity, saveing and are inflationary, but of course you get most of these with oversized debt as well.

     Tax cuts ought to work as well as stimulus did, only without nearly as much middleman to misdirect the money.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16138
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Jim DeMint is absolutely correct
« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2011, 09:26:53 PM »
The problem is that DeMint is demanding a Balanced Budget Amendment in exchange for raising the ceiling. The problem is that the only way to balance a budget immediately is to cut spending and raise revenue so that in flow and out go balance. That won't happen with tax cuts as they tend to take a while to increase receipts in DC.

In essense what DeMint is doing is posturing, showboating for the crowd. He isn't serious about righting the fiscal ship, he is interested in threatening fellow Republicans with his supposed power of influencing the Tea Party voters. Ryan on the other hand is a serious person, putting his name on a budget that could possibly right the ship 10 years down the road.

I'll back the Walkers, Ryans, Daniels, Christies, Kassich's etc, who are willing to do the work and take the risks. And I'll laugh at the DeMints who actually think they can herd cats.