Governor Barbour: "A good Republican candidate shouldn't rule out raising taxes"

[^_^ 5,021]

While he criticized the president for growing government, Barbour said a good Republican candidate shouldn't rule out raising taxes - as long as it were part of a compromise that included spending cuts and other policies that would lead to growth. He pointed to Ronald Reagan as an example of such a leader.

"I wouldn't say I won't support somebody for president who would do that because, like Ronald Reagan, that may be the best we can get for the country," he said.

Similarly, Barbour said it was important for his party to unite behind their presidential candidate and dismiss calls for ideological purity.

"Purity in politics is a loser. Unity in politics is a winner," he said. "My old boss Ronald Reagan used to say, 'Remember, a fellow that agrees you with 80 percent of the time is your friend and ally, not 20-percent traitor.'

Warning against candidates that might split the vote among conservatives, Barbaour said, "It was always amazing to people how many people who didn't agree with Reagan on this issue or that issue voted for him every time. We've got to be like like that."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/05/ftn/main20069102.shtml

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

See, since Barbour isn't running, he can tell it like it is. Or is there some light at the end of the tunnel to be seen here with prominent GOP figures starting to socialize the idea that we're not going to get around raising revenues as part of the deficit solution? They all do it - raising revenues, that is - on the state level in order to balance their budgets. Why should it be any different on the federal level?

[^_^ 5,021]

See, since Barbour isn't running, he can tell it like it is. Or is there some light at the end of the tunnel to be seen here with prominent GOP figures starting to socialize the idea that we're not going to get around raising revenues as part of the deficit solution? They all do it - raising revenues, that is - on the state level in order to balance their budgets. Why should it be any different on the federal level?

They could easily raise revenue at the very top (top 2-5%), but they do have to be wary (GOP concerns have some validity here) of trying to raise revenue by tapping people below that. JMHO.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They could easily raise revenue at the very top (top 2-5%), but they do have to be wary (GOP concerns have some validity here) of trying to raise revenue by tapping people below that. JMHO.

Again, states tap everyone - often those that can afford it least via property tax hikes and/or all sorts of fee increases, sin taxes, you name it - and they get away with that. They even get away with railing against the fed raising any revenues to balance the budget while they do just that and take transfers from the fed at the state and local levels.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

See, since Barbour isn't running, he can tell it like it is. Or is there some light at the end of the tunnel to be seen here with prominent GOP figures starting to socialize the idea that we're not going to get around raising revenues as part of the deficit solution? They all do it - raising revenues, that is - on the state level in order to balance their budgets. Why should it be any different on the federal level?

Raising taxes isn't the only way to generate revenue. Actually it's a bad idea in a teetering economy, and generally a bad political move overall. Well, unless you are a socialist pig and then your supporters love you for it.

Honestly, raising taxes isn't even guaranteed to generate revenue. It could have the reverse effect just as easily if the economy continues to remain on a downturn. Of course if the economy starts growing, then revenue will increase anyway and taxes wouldn't need to be raised to generate revenue. So in reality, there's no reason to raise taxes at all other than a power grab by a government who's more than happy to do so.

The truth is, spending is what's out of control and has been out of control and will continue to spiral that way until someone has the balls to cut it down drastically.

[^_^ 5,021]

Again, states tap everyone - often those that can afford it least via property tax hikes and/or all sorts of fee increases, sin taxes, you name it - and they get away with that. They even get away with railing against the fed raising any revenues to balance the budget while they do just that and take transfers from the fed at the state and local levels.

Yes, but their tax structure does have impact. Living where I do, I am very familiar with how property tax rates affect who stays and who leaves. It all comes down to what kind of town (or state or country) the people in charge want to create. I live in a (for this part of this state) low tax rate town and the results are congestion, a large corporate presence, bad rush hour traffic, a huge middle class and some poor people too and a school district with some bright spots and some serious problems. Hop a few towns west and the taxes skyrocket and there are fewer corporations, everyones white/asian and wealthy and the school system is nearly perfect.

So yes, you are right in that taxes can be raised on everyone. Just remember, how you do it affects individual decisions and the cumulative impact of these individual decisions has a real impact on how your town/state/country will look a decade from now.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Raising taxes isn't the only way to generate revenue. Actually it's a bad idea in a teetering economy, and generally a bad political move overall. Well, unless you are a socialist pig and then your supporters love you for it.

Honestly, raising taxes isn't even guaranteed to generate revenue. It could have the reverse effect just as easily if the economy continues to remain on a downturn. Of course if the economy starts growing, then revenue will increase anyway and taxes wouldn't need to be raised to generate revenue. So in reality, there's no reason to raise taxes at all other than a power grab by a government who's more than happy to do so.

The truth is, spending is what's out of control and has been out of control and will continue to spiral that way until someone has the balls to cut it down drastically.

Spending is higher than average - at about 24% of GDP vs. the usual long range figure of about 21%. So yes, something will have to give on that end.

Revenues are much lower than average as well, however, at about 14% - 15% vs. the usual long range figure of about 18% - 19%. So, that will need to come up as well.

Other than that, you need to take a chill pill and take that tin foil hat off if you really want to engage in a debate.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yes, but their tax structure does have impact. Living where I do, I am very familiar with how property tax rates affect who stays and who leaves. It all comes down to what kind of town (or state or country) the people in charge want to create. I live in a (for this part of this state) low tax rate town and the results are congestion, a large corporate presence, bad rush hour traffic, a huge middle class and some poor people too and a school district with some bright spots and some serious problems. Hop a few towns west and the taxes skyrocket and there are fewer corporations, everyones white/asian and wealthy and the school system is nearly perfect.

So yes, you are right in that taxes can be raised on everyone. Just remember, how you do it affects individual decisions and the cumulative impact of these individual decisions has a real impact on how your town/state/country will look a decade from now.

These are most certainly considerations at the local level. The fed doesn't exactly need to bother with that in the individual tax space unless you're saying that people will all of a sudden start heading north - or south - of the border.

It's a bit more complex on the corporate tax side of things as you'd want to revamp the tax code to encourage production and employment here and discourage jobs being shipped offshore.

[^_^ 5,021]

These are most certainly considerations at the local level. The fed doesn't exactly need to bother with that in the individual tax space unless you're saying that people will all of a sudden start heading north - or south - of the border.

It's a bit more complex on the corporate tax side of things as you'd want to revamp the tax code to encourage production and employment here and discourage jobs being shipped offshore.

Yes, the decision trees are different at the federal level. But the structure will impact decisions in their own ways. I think we agree.