|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
It is interesting that it was actually President Reagan who invented the "Buffet Rule." That's the idea that millionaires should pay at least the same percentage of their income in taxes as their secretaries (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whwCxpLRMmE ).
Ron Reagan, Jr., has argued that his father would not be considered a devotee of Reagonomics if he were just starting out today.
This makes me wonder: How is it that the House Republicans are aguing that they are doing what Reagan did--cutting taxes for the wealthy--in order to create jobs, when Reagan himself argued against it? Have we all gone loony? Are the Republicans right on taxes but wrong about Reagan? Or are the facts irrelevant when arguing your point of view because the ends justify the means?
What are your thoughts?
John McCain was arguing on the side of Buffet just a few years ago, when the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were first proposed.
-- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/us/po … l&_r=0
Those tax breaks for the wealthy were designed to get rid of the surplus that had built up during the Clinton administration, on the principle that if the government was taking in more $ than it needed, then temporary tax cuts should be instituted to trim the surplus.
The problem is they forgot that was a temporary measure designed to drain the federal coffers, and like a needle stuck in someone's arm to draw blood, at some point you need to take it out, or your surplus turns into a deficit!
The other problem being that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were implemented when the economy was booming, so they depended on much, much more revenue coming in than was happening later in Bush's term when the economy tanked.
If Reagan were alive today, the GOP would be lambasting him as a RINO for all his liberal, socialist policies.
Thanks, Greekgeek. That article that you cite from the N.Y. Times was quite informative. The part about Senator John McCain "evolving" on certain positions is interesting::
"In May 2001, Mr. McCain was one of only two Republicans — the other was Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island — to vote against President Bush’s $1.35 trillion 10-year tax cut. On the Senate floor, Mr. McCain said, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”"
I'm starting to think that the salient issue in all of these budget discussions is the public's short memory for political events. So, why wouldn't you change positions if it was expedient to do so? Nobody seems to remember all that much about what really happens.
by Texasbeta6 years ago
I hate to just post a link and walk away, but I cannot imagine it being put more clearly.http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … h-20111109
by Susan Reid5 years ago
Wow. 500,000 households making more than $100K per year and 7,000 millionaires paid no income tax in 2011.Do they consider themselves "victims" do we suppose?Are they lost causes who will never...
by Gary Anderson6 years ago
I have been watching the Yahoo boards and people are furious at the Republicans, especially the Tea Party. They are getting the lion's share of the blame for the debt downgrade. Here's why:1. Obama wanted a grand plan....
by Ralph Schwartz9 months ago
Can someone define what their, or anyone else's "fair share" is?Each day I hear complaints about rich people not paying their "fair share" of taxes - someone define "fair share" for...
by ahorseback6 months ago
Whatever you do follow those party lines or pay for it dearly , you WILL be shamed ?
by Stacie L6 years ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is expected to seek a new base tax rate for the wealthy to ensure that millionaires pay at least at the same percentage as middle income taxpayers.A White House official said...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.