Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS


January 7, 2013

The economic rhetoric we hear from politicians these days is little more than disingenuous magical thinking that will do little to resolve the nation’s financial ills....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jan-07-13 3:35 AM

"If voters were made to actually pay for the cost of government in real time as opposed to passing the cost to future generations, the magical thinking would go away in a hurry."

Amen Phil!!!!

10 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 5:37 AM

Good letter, Phil.

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 5:40 AM

"Our tax structure should be made variable so it can automatically adjust to cover each yearly budget plus ten percent so we can begin to reduce the national debt." - Phil Underwood

* mean, like Bill Clinton did??


"President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

...the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."

See: President Clinton announces another record budget surplus - September 27, 2000

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 6:01 AM


At least that Is what the politicians say.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 6:03 AM

Shaman, you sir have no ability to read and comprehend, as you have proven here. What Phil proposed is not what Clinton did. Nobody has done what Phil proposed here.

I am convinced that Shaman is nothing but a robot that is programed with Liberal talking points and recites them verbatim when he reads certain key words or phrases in someone else's comment.

It would be great to have the people who voted for this mess actually pay for it. Great idea Phil.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 7:11 AM

A sales tax would be graduated at the same percentage for everyone, as those who buy more pay more. Wanting to increase the percentage for expensive purchases is nothing more than envy and class warfare.

6 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 8:09 AM

MrShamman, Bill Clinton lied. There was no surplus. What he called a surplus was the government stealing your social security. If you look at the treasury web-site you will see that the national debt increased every year of the Clinton Presidency. I agree that now that deficit is looking pretty good, but it was still a deficit. If we can't be honest about government spending and taxes, we will never solve the problem. If it makes you feel better, Newt Gingrich told the same lie. It doesn't matter who tells a lie, it is still a lie. Here's the truth. We can't keep spending money the way we have been. At some point the country will collapse and that point gets closer every day.

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 10:17 AM

@Sham- The constant that is never brought up about Bill Clinton's balanced budget is that he had a Republican Congress and actually worked with Speaker Gingrich. At the outset of his presidency he passed the then largest tax increase in U.S. history. If not for the dot-com revolution, there would not have been such a great 1990's. So remember Sham, 1990's, dot-com revolution, Republican Congress= prosperity. Bill Clinton...not so much.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 10:23 AM

Thank you phil for presenting your magical thinking.

You can solve the problem by putting more people back to work, you cut government jobs and the sizee of government and have the private sector pick up the slack. Problem number one the private sector is not intereted in picking up the slack.

The tax code, good luck with that one because your big corporations are not going to give up their wlefare. A national sales tax is not fair. Studies have shown it places a larger burden on the lower income levels.

4 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 10:24 AM

This is the way all forms of government should work. DO NOT SPEND WHAT YOU DO NOT HAVE! This goes for everyone. A one size fits all tax would mean welfare recipients would have to pay for their designer clothes, rollex, cadillac, fillet mignon, drugs (aka medication), mansions with free snow removal service and manicured lawns. The list goes on and on and on Francine.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 11:03 AM


Great letter. I have just one question. You mentioned the voters...many voters (as clearly indicated in this election) don't pay any taxes, much less work. So, the voting issue and paying taxes is idealistic, IMO. In addition, many voters who don't/can't/won/'t work still offer nothing in the 10% + to pay down a bill that they are largely responsible for as for deficit spending.

7 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 11:07 AM

Laughin....good post. I weary of the "people on welfare should deserve nice things attitude" when the working person can't pay the electric bill on time or is spending time trying to find a cell phone pkg. that is cheapest. They wear better clothes than I, have better phones than I and purchase some of the most unnecessary food items with their monthly allotment. The list of what can be purchased (and in no way either necessary or healthy) on the welfare system is beyond the pale.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 11:25 AM

The LTE simply gives an accurate picture of our present fiscal policy and offers a common sense way of correcting the problem we’re facing. The magical thinkers seem to believe you can keep spending until your credit cards are maxed out then threaten the credit card companies until they raise your limit so you can continue spending, then when you reach that limit do it all over again.

There’s no way the economy will recover enough to begin bringing down the budget deficit, let alone pay down the national debt, until there’s a major change in Washington’s magical economic policies. If anyone has a different idea than the variable sales tax, let’s hear it.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 12:40 PM

"Shaman, you sir have no ability to read and comprehend, as you have proven here. What Phil proposed is not what Clinton did. Nobody has done what Phil proposed here." - VinceKnauff


...Except Bill Clinton...and, you Bush I & II-fans STILL can't get-over-it!!!

Ya' know...if you folks would quit putting Bushes into office, there'd be no NEED for the Dems to come-in & clean-UP their me$$e$!!

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 12:56 PM

"MrShamman, Bill Clinton lied. There was no surplus." - enigma


September 24, 1999 - "President Clinton vetoed the Republicans' $792 billion tax cut bill yesterday, killing the chances for a major tax reduction this year and raising the likelihood that tens of billions of dollars in federal budget surpluses will be used to pay down the national debt."

See: Clinton Vetoes GOP Tax Cut Bill

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 1:01 PM

September 30, 1999 - "On the same day House Republicans launched a new attack charging Democrats with "raiding" Social Security to fund spending programs, congressional analysts revealed that the GOP's own spending plan for next year would siphon at least $18 billion of surplus funds generated by the retirement program."


GOP Spending Bills Tap Social Security Surplus


You Jr. NeoCons surely are a desperate herd o' Dead-O-Head lemmings.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 1:09 PM

""When we were faced with deficits, we knew we could battle our way back to zero," said Gail Fosler, chief economist for the Conference Board, a business research group in New York, and a onetime Senate budget analyst. "But now when we have very large surpluses, we have no guidance on how to resolve this issue of more. We're in an economic no man's land."


Clinton Vetoes GOP Tax Cut Bill

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 1:13 PM

""What the Republicans are protesting in their ad campaign they already are guilty of themselves, and have been for two months now," said Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), the ranking House Budget Committee Democrat who requested the CBO study. "They're . . . invading the Social Security surplus, and these are conservative numbers."


GOP Spending Bills Tap Social Security Surplus

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 1:59 PM

As usual, when a letter is posted about government, the usual suspects jump right in and turn it into a partisan – but your side is worse than our side thing. Government is government no matter which party is in charge. Just another example of the narcissistic projection the left practices on a regular basis.

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 3:01 PM

@Phil...nothing better than standing in back of the credit card user's (ACCESS card holders) purchasing gas and groceries. That's right Relene and LaughIn, wearing their designer clothes and driving that Lincoln. While the rest of us buy what we can afford, after depositing our hard earned cash into that government 'slush fund' card. Yes, you can call it class warfare or envy...I call it a big waste of money. But, hey...51% voted to keep it that way. No debate needed, it was already settled in November. Laughs on us. ) :

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 6:13 PM

Why should a more expensive house be taxed at a higher rate? That makes no sense at all. Such a system encourages a Walmart approach to everything in that everything will cheap junk. That is absurd.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 7:09 PM

O.K., nobud....

Happy New Year!

In theory you have a point....but my belief is if you can afford that expensive house, you should be able to afford the tax too. I believe in CA, tags on a vehicle are correlated to the cost. Most likely, a person driving (and choosing to) a Mercedes pays more for the tags than a person buying a small sedan, median price range. Another thought....if a person knows they will be taxed according to a purchase price, perhaps many will consider their spending habits more cautiously.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 7:26 PM

The housing tax hits 2 people immediately, neither of whom are the rich.

One would be Realtors whom work off of commission based upon sale price, the second being contractors/carpenters who build housing units.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 7:47 PM

Another unintended consequence I suspect would be that as the "rich" downgrade and buy the cheaper housing units, the price of those units would increase due to the demand, driving the lower and middle classes out of the housing market.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-07-13 9:50 PM

True Gav..

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 44 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web